Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sandra Calkins v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided August 4, 2015No. 14-1578Published

1DissentBright, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. Because a lawyer’s failure to investigate the facts underlying a summary in a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) can amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and the record does not clearly establish Sandra Calkins’ (Calkins) trial counsel investigated the facts underlying the number of victims and the loss amounts to individual investors as summarized in the PSR, I would reverse and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing because “[a]bsent ... clarity, an evidentiary hearing [on a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion] is required.” Latorre v. United States, 193 F.3d 1035, 1038…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Ricardo Arredondo v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  3. Corey Earl Engelen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
  4. David Paul Voytik v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
  5. United States v. James Anderson and Dean HodgeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API