CHANCEY FULLER V. USA, No. 14-56260 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHANCEY TERREL FULLER, a.k.a. Chance, a.k.a. Fat Boy, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-56260 D.C. Nos. 2:13-cv-07420-JFW 2:08-cr-00240-JFW MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Chancey Terrel Fuller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). see United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm. Fuller contends that appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge his waiver of the right to counsel under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). As the government concedes, Fuller was misadvised of the potential penalty that he faced on one of the six charged offenses. However, because Fuller was otherwise correctly advised of the cumulative maximum term of imprisonment that he faced, the nature of the charges against him, and the dangers of self-representation, the record reflects that Fuller waived his right to counsel “with eyes open.” See id. at 835; see also United States v. Neal, 776 F.3d 645, 657-59 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Fuller has not shown that counsel’s failure to raise this challenge on direct appeal was objectively unreasonable, or that the claim had a reasonable probability of success on appeal. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see also Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288 (2000) (counsel need not raise every non-frivolous claim on appeal, and the presumption of effective appellate assistance is overcome “only when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented”) (internal quotations omitted). We treat Fuller’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 2 14-56260 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999). Fuller’s motion for leave to file his untimely reply brief is granted. The Clerk is directed to file Fuller’s reply brief (Docket Entry No. 45). Fuller’s motion for summary reversal is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 14-56260
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.
