Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03269/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03269-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fredrick H. Lenover
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued January 26, 2010

Decided January 29, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐3269

FREDRICK H. LENOVER,

Petitioner‐Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Indiana,

Terre Haute Division.

No. 2:07‐cv‐00369‐LJM‐JMS

Larry J. McKinney,

Judge.

O R D E R

Fredrick Lenover is a federal prisoner who moved to vacate his sentence under 28

U.S.C. § 2255.   Lenover and four codefendants were convicted of conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine and to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(a)(1); ten additional codefendants entered into plea agreements

with the government.  Lenover was sentenced to 350 months’ imprisonment.  We affirmed the

convictions, United States v. Gray, 410 F.3d 338, 349 (7th Cir. 2005), and Lenover’s sentence,

United States v. Lenover, 182 F. App’x 563, 566 (7th Cir. 2006).

Lenover’s § 2255 motion alleged that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because

he failed to undertake a good‐faith analysis of the case and thus provided unreasonable advice

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 08-3269 Document: 26 Filed: 01/29/2010 Pages: 2
No. 08‐3269 Page 2

that caused Lenoverto reject a plea offer he otherwise would have accepted.  The district court

denied Lenover’s § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.    We issued a

certificate of appealability on the question of whether trial counsel provided ineffective

assistance during the plea negotiations.

Lenover argues on appealthatthe district court erred by denying his § 2255 motion without

holding an evidentiary hearing.  Lenover is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(b) only if he has alleged facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief.  See Sandoval v.

United States, 574 F.3d 847, 850 (7th Cir. 2009).  To prevail on his ineffective‐assistance claim,

Lenover must present (1) allegations that, if proven, demonstrate that counsel’s performance

during plea negotiations was objectively unreasonable, and (2) evidence that the likelihood he

was prejudiced by counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance is better than negligible.

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Julian v. Bartley, 495 F.3d 487, 495, 499–500

(7th Cir. 2007).  “Ineffective‐assistance claims often require an evidentiaryhearing because they

frequently allege facts that the record does not fully disclose.”  Osagiede v. United States, 543

F.3d 399, 408 (7th Cir. 2008).

The government acknowledged at oral argument that it had sent a letter to Lenover’s trial

counsel requesting his take on Lenover’s allegations.  But trial counsel never responded, and

the governmentneverfollowedup.  We believe that hearing from trial counsel would beuseful,

so weVACATEthe judgment andREMANDforthe limitedpurpose of solicitinghis testimony.

Case: 08-3269 Document: 26 Filed: 01/29/2010 Pages: 2