US v. Shahiee Flowers, No. 14-7786 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7786 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAHIEE JERMAINE FLOWERS, a/k/a Munchie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00558-MBS-2; 1:13-cv-00866-MBS) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shahiee Jermaine Flowers, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, John David Rowell, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shahiee Jermaine Flowers appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Flowers received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to object to the district court’s unrecorded excusal of a juror outside of Flowers’ presence. After receiving and reviewing additional briefing, we affirm the district court’s judgment denying relief. * To succeed on his ineffective assistance claim, Flowers must show that: (1) counsel’s failure to object fell below an objective standard deficient performance Washington, recently arising of 466 U.S. addressed from a was 668, the trial reasonableness, and prejudicial. 687 standard court’s exclusion counsel’s See Strickland The (1984). for (2) Supreme establishing of the v. Court prejudice defendant and counsel from a proceeding involving the composition of the jury. See Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015) (analyzing whether § 2254 petitioner suffered “actual prejudice” from trial court’s exclusion of defense counsel from proceeding under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)). Under Ayala, a defendant suffers * We denied a certificate of appealability with respect to Flowers’ claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not requesting a paid-informant instruction. 2 actual prejudice from the exclusion of counsel from a proceeding involving the composition of the jury if counsel’s presence at the proceeding potentially juror. would have successfully permitted argument counsel against the to advance excusal of a the Ayala, 135 S. Ct. at 2199, 2201, 2204-06. Under Flowers the bears probability prejudice the that, standards burden had of counsel of Strickland demonstrating objected to the and a Ayala, reasonable trial court’s excusal of the juror, counsel could have advanced a successful argument against the juror’s excusal. We have reviewed the record and the briefs on appeal, and conclude that Flowers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to Flowers’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to object to the excusal of a juror. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
