Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Bobby Altwon HART Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America Respondent-Appellee
[Unpublished]
In 2015, Bobby Hart pleaded guilty to a drug offense. He subsequently filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and the district court, without an evidentiary hearing, denied the motion. This court granted Hart a certificate of appealability as to his claim that sentencing counsel failed to file a notice of appeal as directed.1
Upon careful review, we conclude that an evidentiary hearing was warranted as to Hart’s claim. See Witthar v. United States, 793 F.3d 920, 922-24 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (concluding that, when the district court receives conflicting statements from the § 2255 movant and former counsel, the court cannot make factual determinations based on the relative credibility of the individuals without an evidentiary hearing and observing that, if neither statement is facially incredible and both contain similar specificity, counsel’s contrary statement is insufficient to support a finding that the movant’s allegations cannot be accepted as true); cf. Roundtree v. United States, 751 F.3d 923, 925-27 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding that a § 2255 movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the motion, the files, and the record conclusively show that he is not entitled to relief and observing that the district court is required to accept the movant’s assertions as true unless they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, merely conclusions, or would not entitle him to relief).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment only as to Hart’s claim that sentencing counsel failed to file a notice of appeal as directed and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. We also deny the Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal in part.
FOOTNOTES
1. A certificate of appealability was also granted as to Hart’s claim that counsel failed to consult about an appeal. But Hart has abandoned that claim. See Geach v. Chertoff, 444 F.3d 940, 946 n.8 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that arguments not raised in the opening brief were abandoned).
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-3451
Decided: February 04, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)