Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneypleamotionmotion to dismissprivileged communicationattorney-client privilegepiracy
attorneymotionattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

United States v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., 622 F.Supp.3d 460
View Case »
In re Federated Department Stores, Inc., 43 Fed.Appx. 820, 2002 WL 1809094
View Case »
Pan American Standard Brands, Inc. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 43 Cust.Ct. 411, 1959 WL 9268, Abs. No. 63,533
View Case »
Bauer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2010 WL 1966193
View Case »
Crawford v. Commissioner Of Social Security, 363 F.3d 1155, 96 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 262, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 17205B, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 344
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

RICKEY LEE YOUNG, JR., Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 12009216

Facts

Rickey Lee Young, Jr. pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 151 months in prison, which was below the calculated sentencing range. He filed a motion to vacate his sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, but did not sign a required attorney-client waiver form that would allow his former counsel to respond to the claims. The court warned him multiple times about the consequences of not signing the waiver.

Mr. Young timely filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence on October 3, 2023. In that motion, he asserted a single claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue

Did Rickey Lee Young, Jr. waive his attorney-client privilege by asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and should his motion to vacate be dismissed due to his failure to sign the waiver?

The court concludes that he does not consent to waiving his privilege as to communications he had with his former counsel Mr. Hagen.

Rule

A client impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege when asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, but the privilege resides with the client, not the attorney.

There is authority to the effect that a client impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege when he asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, at least to the extent necessary to prove or disprove the claim.

Analysis

The court determined that despite Young's claims of ineffective assistance, he had not waived his attorney-client privilege because he failed to sign the waiver form after being warned that his claims would not be considered without it. The court emphasized that Young's refusal to consent to the waiver indicated he did not wish to disclose privileged communications.

The court bases its conclusion on the fact that when the court first ordered Mr. Young to sign the attorney-client waiver form, the court informed Mr. Young that failure to sign the form would result in the court not considering any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Conclusion

The court recommended granting the government's motion to dismiss and dismissing Young's § 2255 motion and amended motion, as he did not comply with the requirement to sign the waiver.

Therefore, the court recommends dismissing Mr. Young's § 2255 motion and his amended motion which contain only claims asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.

Who won?

The United States of America prevailed in the case because the court found that Young's failure to sign the waiver form precluded consideration of his ineffective assistance claims.

The court is reluctant to pursue the first option as it would place Mr. Hagen in the position of revealing client confidences when all indications are that Mr. Young pointedly has refused to consent to such revelations.

You must be