Brewer v. United States

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Trent Brewer’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, granted the Government’s motion to dismiss, and denied Brewer’s renewed motion for recusal or independent review. The court rejected Brewer’s claims of judicial bias during sentencing and ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that the record conclusively showed he was not entitled to relief and that several claims were procedurally defaulted or unsupported.

Holdings

1. Brewer's judicial-bias claim was procedurally defaulted because he did not raise it on direct appeal, and he failed to show cause and prejudice or actual innocence to excuse the default. In any event, the claim failed because the sentencing transcript did not establish actual bias or a risk of bias.
2. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to continue investigating the underlying offense, obtain a search warrant, or further develop a self-defense theory after Brewer accepted the plea agreement.
3. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate or present mitigating evidence because the record showed that counsel presented substantial mitigation evidence and arguments at sentencing.
4. Counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by advising Brewer about the plea agreement, appeal waiver, dismissed and uncharged offenses, or his appellate rights.
5. Brewer was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because the motion, files, and records conclusively showed that he was not entitled to § 2255 relief.
6. Brewer's renewed motion for independent review was denied as untimely because it was filed more than fifteen months after the prior recusal order and did not identify a legal basis for reconsideration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brewer's allegations concerning the sentencing judge's statements and conduct established judicial bias or a due-process violation cognizable under § 2255.
2. Whether Brewer's judicial-bias claim was procedurally defaulted because he failed to raise it on direct appeal.
3. Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate a self-defense theory or obtain additional evidence.
4. Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing.
5. Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise Brewer adequately about the plea agreement, appeal waiver, and potential consequences of breaching the agreement.
6. Whether Brewer was entitled to an evidentiary hearing or a certificate of appealability.
7. Whether Brewer's renewed motion for independent review of the prior recusal decision was timely and legally supported.

Disposition

dismissed