In Thompson v. U.S., No. 05-16970 (Mar. 14, 2007), the Court (Tjoflat, Barkett & Kravitch) reversed the denial of a § 2255 motion.
The defendant claimed that his counsel was ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal. The Court affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant had not instructed his lawyer to file a notice of appeal. However, the Court found that counsel had not adequately discussed the appeal with his client. Counsel had told the defendant an appeal of his sentence would not be worthwhile, in a five-minute exchange. The Court found that this was not adequate "consultation." Moreover, the defendant was "unhappy" with the sentence he received. This demonstrated a reasonable probability that, had the defendant been adequately consulted, he would have requested an appeal. Hence, counsel was ineffective.
