United States v. V. Ledesma-Cardenas, No. 06-1760 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - habeas. District court's finding that defendant did not direct her attorney to file a direct appeal was not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-1760 ___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Virginia Ledesma-Cardenas, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: June 11, 2007 Filed: June 20, 2007 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Virginia Ledesma-Cardenas appeals the dismissal of her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence, claiming her trial counsel failed to file a notice appealing that sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. At an evidentiary hearing, counsel stated (and the district court1 found) that initially Ledesma wanted to appeal, but after they discussed her case, he believed she no longer wished to appeal. Although Ledesma testified that she never discussed the possibility of appeal with her counsel, she now relies on his testimony to argue that she told him she wanted to appeal. The 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. district court found counsel credible, concluding that Ledesma s desire to appeal was not made manifest to him, and therefore counsel did not fail in his duty to file an appeal. This court defers to a district court s credibility determination. Barger v. United States, 204 F.3d 1180, 1182 (8th Cir. 2000) (affirming district court decision crediting attorney s testimony that his client did not request an appeal); Green v. United States, 323 F.3d 1100, 1103 (8th Cir. 2003) (same). Ledesma s assertion that she made a request is not by itself sufficient to support a grant of relief [under § 2255], if evidence that the fact-finder finds to be more credible indicates the contrary position. Id. Having carefully reviewed the record, this court finds that the district court s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and no error of law appears. See United States v. Davis, 406 F.3d 505, 508 (8th Cir. 2005); Green, 323 F.3d at 1103; Barger, 204 F.3d at 1182. As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
