US v. Michael Davis, No. 13-4780 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4780 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL CORRAN DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:13-cr-00027-FL-1) Submitted: May 12, 2014 Decided: May 16, 2014 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra J. Barrett, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael sexual abuse, (2012). Corran in Davis violation pleaded of 18 guilty U.S.C. ยง to aggravated 2241(a)(1), (2) The district court sentenced Davis to 168 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether misconduct and assistance. the whether Government trial committed counsel prosecutorial rendered ineffective Davis was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. Counsel committed first prosecutorial questions misconduct whether in the delaying Government more than two years between identifying Davis as a suspect in the offense and obtaining an indictment, during which incarcerated on unrelated state charges. of prosecutorial government s misconduct, conduct a defendant prejudicially time Davis was To succeed on a claim must affected show his that the substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial. United States v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2002). With respect to pre-indictment delay, intentional delay by the government to gain tactical advantage over the defendant, in addition to substantial prejudice to the defendant, [violates] due process. Howell v. Barker, 904 F.2d 889, 894 (4th Cir. 1990) (citation 2 omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the Government did not commit prosecutorial misconduct in delaying bringing an indictment against Davis. Appellate counsel next questions whether Davis trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for withdrawing his motion to dismiss the indictment based on the pre-indictment delay. To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that counsel s performance was deficient, and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. (1984). Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 Under the second prong of the test in the context of a conviction following a guilty plea, a defendant can show prejudice only by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). We will address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). does not conclusively We find that ineffective assistance appear on the record. decline to address this claim on direct appeal. 3 We therefore We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This writing, of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Davis, Court of in the If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Davis. We dispense with oral legal contentions are before this and argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials court argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
