United States v. James Flowers, III, No. 14-3492 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court did not clearly err in finding Flowers did not ask his attorney to file a direct appeal and did not err in denying Flowers' claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3492 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. James Lee Flowers, III lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: June 5, 2015 Filed: June 22, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Flowers appeals from the judgment of the District Court1 denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The District Court granted 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Flowers a certificate of appealability on his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal as requested. After de novo review of Flowers’s ineffective-assistance claim, according deference to the District Court’s credibility findings, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding that Flowers did not ask his attorney to file an appeal. See Walking Eagle v. United States, 742 F.3d 1079, 1082 (8th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
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.
