## Facts

- Patricia Hearst was convicted in federal court of bank robbery; her conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari was denied.
- After retaining new counsel, Hearst filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate her conviction on constitutional grounds, including ineffective assistance and a conflict of interest involving trial counsel F. Lee Bailey.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion without discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
- While the § 2255 appeal was pending, the President commuted Hearst’s sentence; Hearst argued the case remained live because she continued to challenge the conviction.
- Hearst alleged counsel had a personal financial/publicity interest due to a publishing arrangement to write a book about the trial.
- Bailey acknowledged receiving offers and signing a publishing contract that was contingent on Hearst agreeing not to publish her own account for 18 months after his book.
- Two days after the guilty verdict, Hearst signed a covenant restricting her own publication for the relevant period.
- Hearst claimed the alleged conflict influenced trial strategy, including not seeking a venue change or continuance despite extensive publicity and calling her to testify despite her invoking the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury.
- Hearst also asserted additional ineffective-assistance allegations unrelated to the publishing arrangement.

## Issues

1. Whether the § 2255 appeal became moot after commutation of Hearst’s sentence.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying § 2255 relief without a hearing on the claim that counsel’s book contract created an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected representation in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
3. Whether the district court properly denied, without a hearing, other ineffective-assistance claims unrelated to the alleged book-contract conflict.

## Decision

- The appeal was not moot because § 2255 relief could still vacate the conviction despite Hearst’s release from custody.
- The court affirmed the denial of § 2255 relief on the non-conflict ineffective-assistance and related claims because the record conclusively showed no entitlement to relief or the allegations were insufficient as a matter of law.
- The court vacated the denial of § 2255 relief as to the book-contract conflict-of-interest allegations and remanded for discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
- The court held Hearst’s conflict allegations were specific and not conclusively refuted by the existing record, requiring factual development.

## Legal Principles

- A § 2255 motion may be denied without a hearing only if the motion and the case record conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.
- A Sixth Amendment conflict-of-interest claim brought without a contemporaneous objection requires a showing that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel’s performance (Cuyler v. Sullivan standard).
- A lawyer’s personal financial interest, including a publishing arrangement concerning the client’s case, can constitute an “actual conflict” if it plausibly influenced tactical decisions against the client’s interests.
- Commutation of sentence does not moot a § 2255 challenge where the court retains power to vacate the conviction.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held the § 2255 proceeding remained justiciable and required an evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel’s alleged book-deal conflict created an actual conflict that adversely affected representation, while affirming the denial of Hearst’s other ineffective-assistance claims on the existing record.


United States v. Hearst, 638 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1980)