United States v. Jeffrey Dean Howard

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

Were the question whether an evidentia-ry hearing should have been held to determine whether Howard was denied due process because of an inadequate inquiry regarding his competence at the time of his plea, I might well concur. I share the majority’s concern about the inadequacy of *884 the district court’s inquiry. My problem is with blaming the lawyer.

The judge learned that Howard was taking Percocet, and probably should have inquired more thoroughly about whether Howard understood what he was doing. Anyone who has had teeth pulled or broken bones treated has taken narcotic painkillers and knows that they sometimes dull the wits. They can also sharpen them, if the pain is so excruciating that the narcotics enable the mind to focus on something other than the pain. The judge learned that Howard was on narcotic painkiller medication stronger than what one gets for root canals and extractions. Howard had been repeatedly hospitalized for fifteen years for complications resulting from compound fractures to his leg in a motorcycle accident, and the Percocet evidently was for his leg pain.

The majority concedes, though, that “we do not address…

When Jeffrey Dean Howard pled guilty in federal district court, he was under the influence of a prescribed narcotic painkiller due to severe leg injuries from a motorcycle accident and consequently, he claims, did not fully understand the nature and consequences of his plea agreement. Howard appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition, arguing that his counsel’s performance was constitutionally ineffective in permitting him, while incompetent, to acquiesce in a plea agreement he had seen for the first time just before he agreed to plead guilty.

Because there is no dispute that Howard was taking powerful narcotic drugs that could have dulled his mental faculties and because he has alleged specific, credible facts in support of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we conclude that the district court should have permitted Howard to develop these claims more fully in an evidentiary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we reverse and remand.

Factual and Procedural Background

In October 1998, Pierce County Sheriffs deputies discovered a clandestine methamphetamine-manufacturing laboratory at a house Howard shared with his…

381 F.3d 873 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Dean HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-16228. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 13, 2004. Filed August 25, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED David B. Koch, Neilsen, Broman & Koch, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for the defendant-appellant. Helen J. Brunner, Assistant United States Attorney, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Jack E. Tanner, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-01-05153-JET, CR-98-05442-JET. Before: D.W. NELSON, KLEINFELD and FISHER, Circuit Judges. FISHER, Circuit Judge: 1 When Jeffrey Dean Howard pled guilty in federal district court, he was under the influence of a prescribed narcotic painkiller due to severe leg injuries from a motorcycle accident and consequently, he claims, did not fully understand the nature and consequences of his plea agreement. Howard appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition, arguing that his counsel's performance was constitutionally ineffective in permitting him, while incompetent, to acquiesce in a…