Calix v. United States

Background

Andre Calix was charged in a nine-count indictment with bank robberies, armed bank robbery, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. A jury found him guilty on all counts on September 19, 2017. On June 20, 2018, the court sentenced him to 300 months in prison, consisting of 156 months on the bank-robbery counts, 84 consecutive months on the firearm-use count, and 60 consecutive months on the firearm-possession count. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction on September 12, 2019.

Calix then filed an amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. He raised two ineffective-assistance claims. First, he argued that trial counsel acted unreasonably by seeking a 90-day competency evaluation and by relying on the Speedy Trial Act instead of also raising the Constitution’s speedy-trial protection. Second, he argued that appellate counsel had a conflict of interest with trial counsel and should have raised the competency-evaluation issue on direct appeal.

Trial-Counsel Claims

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Under that test, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance caused prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability that the proceeding would have ended differently.

The court held that trial counsel was not ineffective for requesting another competency evaluation. Two earlier evaluations had found Calix competent, but they had not involved interviews with him. Defense counsel’s psychiatrist believed those evaluations were not scientifically accurate and might not follow accepted psychiatric principles. The court concluded that seeking a more thorough evaluation, including psychiatric care and observation, was reasonable and consistent with a sound defense strategy. The court also rejected Calix’s argument that counsel improperly prevented him from proceeding on his own defense theory because his competency remained unresolved at the time.

The court also held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a constitutional speedy-trial claim. Although the roughly 50-month delay favored Calix under the first factor of the constitutional four-factor test, the court found that the reasons for the delay weighed against him. The record showed that Calix repeatedly refused to communicate with trial counsel and psychiatric professionals, which contributed to competency proceedings and trial adjournments. The court also noted that Calix did not identify government bad faith or negligence, did not identify relevant administrative delays, and did not show specific prejudice to his defense. The court therefore concluded that a constitutional speedy-trial motion likely would have failed and that counsel reasonably chose not to make that argument.

Appellate-Counsel Claim

The court did not decide whether appellate counsel actually had a conflict of interest. Instead, it held that Calix had not proved prejudice even assuming a conflict existed. The omitted argument concerned trial counsel’s request for the third competency evaluation. Because the court had already found that request reasonable and nonprejudicial, it concluded that the argument likely would not have succeeded on appeal. Calix therefore failed to show that the alleged error affected the result of his direct appeal.

Disposition

The court denied Calix’s motion to vacate his sentence under Section 2255. It directed the clerk to close the open motions and case numbers 13-cr-582 and 18-cv-6323.