United States of America v. Myron L. Pryor

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 21a0180n.06
Case No. 19-3536
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MYRON L. PRYOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
OPINION
BEFORE: SUTTON, McKEAGUE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Myron Pryor raises a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on direct
appeal. Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are mixed questions of law and fact, which we
review de novo. United States v. Ferguson, 669 F.3d 756, 761 (6th Cir. 2012).
We typically decline to address ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal,
however, unless the “existing record is adequate to assess properly the merits of the claim.” United
States v. Hynes, 467 F.3d 951, 969 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Franklin, 415 F.3d
537, 555-56 (6th Cir. 2005)). When an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is raised on direct
appeal, the Court and counsel “must proceed on a trial record not developed precisely for the object
of litigating or preserving the claim and thus often incomplete or inadequate for this purpose.”
Ferguson, 669 F.3d at 762 (quoting Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2003)).

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 19-3536, United States v. Pryor
- 2 -
We find the record insufficiently developed to support Pryor’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Pryor argues that his defense counsel failed to submit a properly briefed
motion to suppress evidence, and further failed to file a reply. To review Pryor’s arguments, we
would need further evidence, such as an affidavit from Pryor’s defense attorney stating why he
chose not to supply further information pertaining to the motion to suppress. This evidence is not
in the record.
We have previously held that a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the “preferred mode for
raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Ferguson, 669 F.3d at 762 (citing Massaro,
538 U.S. at 504). Deferring ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims to Section 2255 proceedings
allows the matter to be litigated first in the district court, “which is ‘the forum best suited to
developing the facts necessary to determining the adequacy of representation’ because it may take
testimony from witnesses including the defendant, prosecution, and counsel.” Id. (quoting
Massaro, 538 U.S. at 505-06).
For these reasons, we DISMISS the appeal without prejudice to Pryor’s right to raise the
claim in a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

-- 2 of 2 --