Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 13-6471
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.
(3:06-cr-00008-JPB-JSK-1; 3:10-cv-00057JPB-JSK)
Submitted:
Decided:
December 6, 2013
Thomas Camilletti,
States Attorneys,
PER CURIAM:
Cecil
Ray,
Jr.,
federal
prisoner,
filed
28
trial.
denying
Ray
relief
sought
on
reconsideration.
his
to
appeal
motion
and
the
a
district
subsequent
courts
order
order
denying
base
within
1000
feet
of
school,
(Count
Eight).
as
to
the
counts.
rejected
the
Governments
plea
offer,
his
exposure
would
had informed him that if he went to trial, ten years was the
most
that
he
could
receive.
In
his
motion
to
amend,
Ray
stated
that
Manford
expressly
advised
him
to
as
to
drug
weight.
Ray
averred
that
had
counsel
be
happy
trial
strategy,
he
would
have
accepted
the
In
show
that:
(1)
counsels
performance
fell
below
an
Sixth
Amendment
right
to
applies
to
the
plea
accepted
by
the
court,
and
that
the
conviction
or
sentence, or both, under the offers terms would have been less
severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were
imposed.
the
Sixth
Amendment
right
to
counsel
in
the
plea
bargaining
Under
Id.
at
the
1409.
Additionally,
defendant
must
show
that
if
probability
would
have
implemented.
neither
prevented
the
the
prosecution
offer
from
nor
being
the
trial
accepted
or
Id. at 1410.
and
records
of
the
case
conclusively
show
that
the
fact
and
conclusions
U.S.C.A. 2255(b).
required
when
of
law
with
respect
thereto.
28
movant
presents
5
colorable
Sixth
Amendment
claim
showing
disputed
facts
beyond
the
record
or
when
Cir. 2000).
While the district court acknowledged that there was
no objective evidence tending to disconfirm Rays declarations,
and that a hearing was typically warranted in such situations,
it
found
number
of
Rays
contentions
far-fetched.
The
to
show
prejudice
as
result
of
his
attorneys
representations.
We
conclude
that
the
district
court
abused
its
assistance
of
counsel
claims
relating
to
his
As to prejudice,
accepted
by
the
court,
and
that
the
conviction
or
sentence, or both, under the offers terms would have been less
severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were
imposed.
hindsight.
Id.
(internal
quotation
marks
and
citation
omitted); see also Burt v. Titlow, ___ U.S. ___, 2013 WL 5904117
at *6 (Nov. 5, 2013) ([C]ounsel should be strongly presumed to
have
rendered
decisions
adequate
in
the
assistance
exercise
and
of
made
all
significant
reasonable
professional
omitted).
failure
to
provide
professional
plea
may
constitute
deficient
assistance.
Magana
v.
Hofbauer, 263 F.3d 542, 550 (6th Cir. 2001); see also United
States
v.
curiam)
counsels
Gordon,
156
(recognizing
gross
F.3d
376,
ineffective
misadvice
379-81
Cir.
assistance
regarding
(2d
1998)
claim
potential
(per
where
sentencing
record
as
it
stands
is
bare.
By
his
own
trial
counsel
failed
to
anticipate
his
enhancements
at
anticipated
these
enhancements
when
the
bases
for
the
to
the
We
Governments
therefore
second
conclude
the
plea
offer,
district
and
court
on
abused
what
its
We remand with
counsel
Governments
was
ineffective
second
plea
in
offer
8
advising
and
his
Ray
to
related
reject
claim
the
that
before
this
decisional process.
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the