United States v. Ratliff, No. 12-50108 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate her conviction. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of whether defendant's suppression motion would have been meritorious. The court vacated the COA and remanded for clarification as to whether defendant had made a substantial showing of the denial of her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and was entitled to a COA on that issue.
Download PDF
Case: 12-50108 Document: 00512280613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED June 19, 2013 No. 12-50108 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. DEBRA RENEE RATLIFF, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Before ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, District Judge.* HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge. Debra Ratliff appeals from the district court s denial of her § 2255 motion to vacate her conviction. The lone issue preserved for review is whether her trial attorney s failure to file a motion to suppress constituted ineffective assistance of counsel ( IAC ) and rendered involuntary her guilty plea. To prove that claim, Ratliff was required to show that (1) a suppression motion would have been meritorious, (2) her counsel s failure to file one was objectively unreasonable (the * District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. Case: 12-50108 Document: 00512280613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 No. 12-50108 performance prong), and (3) but for her counsel s deficient performance in that regard, she would not have pleaded guilty (the prejudice prong). Ward v. Dretke, 420 F.3d 479, 487 88 & n.19 (5th Cir. 2005). Adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court rejected that claim, ruling that Ratliff failed to make the required showing as to any of its elements, and correspondingly denied and dismissed her § 2255 motion. The district court went on to grant a certificate of appealability ( COA ) on the first issue of whether Ratliff s suppression motion would have been meritorious, finding the issue debatable among reasonable jurists. The district court did not indicate whether it intended for the COA to include the independently dispositive issues of performance and prejudice, and Ratliff did not ask this court to expand the scope of the COA to include those issues. We reiterate that [a] certificate of appealability may issue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 481 (2000) (emphasis added). Where a federal habeas corpus petition, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, or, as here, a motion to vacate, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raises a constitutional claim with multiple elements, a COA may issue with respect to that claim only if the defendant makes a substantial showing as to each element. See Blue v. Thaler, 665 F.3d 647, 662 (5th Cir. 2011) ( Blue is entitled to a COA on his Atkins claim only if he can make a substantial showing that he has been denied his constitutional right to be exempt from execution due to mental retardation. To make that showing, he must satisfy all three elements of the Briseño test. . . . [B]ecause Blue has conceded that he cannot show that he suffers from significant limitations in adaptive functioning[ Briseño prong two ]reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court s conclusion that it was objectively reasonable for the [Texas Court of Criminal Appeals] to determine that he is not mentally retarded. We must deny Blue s 2 Case: 12-50108 Document: 00512280613 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 No. 12-50108 motion for a COA on this issue. ); id. ( If a district court found that a habeas petitioner s Strickland claim failed because he could show neither deficient performance nor prejudice, a request for a COA only as to the deficiency issue would be futile. ); cf. Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 729, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that district court s grant of COA on procedural issue, but denial of COA on merits issue, present[ed] advisory-opinion problems because resolution of the procedural issue would not have any effect[] on petitioner s entitlement to habeas relief). We VACATE the COA and REMAND for clarification as to whether Ratliff has made a substantial showing of the denial of her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and is entitled to a COA on that issue. See Berthoff v. United States, 201 F.3d 426, at *1 (1st Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision) (vacating COA and remanding for clarification where, as here, [t]he thrust of the court s remarks in issuing the certificate suggests a desire for additional guidance on a constitutional question, but the wording of the COA leaves some doubt as to the precise issue(s) on which the certificate was granted ); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 651 & n.7 (2012) (noting that circuit courts regularly remand for clarification when a COA fails to indicate a constitutional issue). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
