IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30964

Summary Calendar

ALVIN MEAD,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CV-3058

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alvin Mead, Louisiana prisoner # 310779, appeals the denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for possession of cocaine, for

which he is serving a life sentence as an habitual offender. The district court

granted Mead a certificate of appealability on the issue of ineffective assistance

of counsel. Mead argues that counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding

whether to accept the plea offer.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-30964 Document: 00511578990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2011
No. 10-30964

Whether Mead received ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed de

novo. Cf. Medillin v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660, 680 (2005). We review the district

court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Charles

v. Thaler, 629 F.3d 494, 498 (2011). To establish ineffective assistance, Mead

must show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient

performance prejudiced the defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687 (1984). “Prejudice in the state sentencing context turns on whether,

absent counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that the defendant’s

sentence would have been significantly less harsh.” Charles, 629 F.3d at 499

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Mead argues that he was deprived of constitutionally adequate

representation when, after the State agreed to impose the sentence the defense

sought, counsel allowed him to reject the plea offer without adequately advising

him of its advantages and disadvantages. Significantly, Mead does not allege

that he was unaware that he was facing a life sentence as an habitual offender. 

See United States v. Herrera, 412 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 2005). The state record

and allegations made for the first time in Mead’s appellate brief indicate that the

terms of the plea offer were communicated to Mead; however, Mead, who has

consistently maintained his innocence, exercised his right to a trial by jury. 

Mead’s assertions that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to give him

unspecified advice and that it is reasonable likely that he would have accepted

the plea offer had he received such advice are purely conclusional. As such, his

allegations of prejudice are insufficient to support a basis for habeas relief. See

Green v. Johnson, 160 F.3d 1029, 1040 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, Mead was

not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Fc. United States v. Edwards, 442 F.3d

258, 264 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 10-30964 Document: 00511578990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2011