## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __

No. 1 1- 14 76

__

__ __ __ __

Harl an Garci a, *

* App el la nt

, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of

* So ut h Dak ot a. Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 17 , 20 12
Fi le d: Ju ne 6, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Har la n Ri ch ard Garci a of di st rib ut in g 50 gr am s or m or e of

m et ha m ph et am in e an d co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e more th an 50 0 gr am s of

m et ha m ph et am in e. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 13 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. 1

The se co nv ic ti on s were affi rm ed on di rect ap pe al

. 56 2 F.3 d 94 7 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 9)

. Garci a m ov e d u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 to va cat e hi s se nt en ce, al le gi ng in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l. The d i s t ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n an d a cert ifi cat e of

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Bat te y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of So ut h Dak ot a.ap pe al ab il it y

. Thi s co ur t gr an te d a c e rti fic at e on whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld

ha ve he ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng be fo re d e n yi n g t h e m ot io n. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

Garci a’s at to rn ey ad m it s th at be fo re tri al he m is cal cu la te d th e cri m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y , res ul ti ng in a hi gh er Gu id el in e ran ge

. The a tt or ne y ad vi se d Gar ci a o f th e

hi gh er ran g e w h e n di sc us si ng th e go ve rn m en t’s two pr op os ed pl ea ag reem en ts

. Garci a reje c t ed th e ag reem en ts be cau se he di d no t feel he sh ou ld face th e sa m e

am ou nt of pr is on ti m e as if he wen t to tri al

. He was al so co nc ern ed ab ou t faci ng m or e

ti m e th an hi s co -co ns pi rat or s (wh o ha d al read y pl ed gu il ty an d were co op erat in g wit h

th e go ve rn m en t). Bo th of th e Gov ern m en t’s pl ea of fers req ui r e d Garci a to si gn a

fact ua l ba si s st at em en t th at he twi ce br ou gh t ab ou t on e po un d of m et h to Rap id Ci ty.

To pr ov e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, Garci a m us t sh ow th at hi s co un se l

m ad e erro rs so se rio us th at he was no t pr ov id ed wit h th e “ co un se l” gu aran te ed by th e
Si xt h Am en dm en t, whi ch res ul te d in a pe rfo rm an ce so de fic ie nt th at it de pr iv ed hi m

of a fai r tri al

. Se e St

ri ck la nd v. Wa sh in gt on , 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 7 (1 98 4)

. A co ur t ne ed

no t ad dr es s bo th pr on gs of th e St ri ckl an d te st if th e pe ti ti on er can n o t mee t on e of

th em

. Id

. at 69 7. An e v i d en ti ary he ari ng is req ui red un le ss th e m ot io n, fil es , an d

reco rd s of th e cas e co nc lu si ve ly sh ow t h e d e f e n d an t is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f.

Ki ng sb er ry v. Unit

ed St at es , 20 2 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). A pe ti ti on er’s

al le ga ti on s m

us t be acce pt ed as tru e an d a he a r i n g s h o u l d be he ld un le ss th ey are

co nt rad ic te d b y th e reco rd , i nh eren tl y in cred ib le , m erel y co nc lu si on s, or wou ld no t

en ti tl e th e pe ti ti on er t o re li ef. Eng el en v. Uni te d S

ta te s , 68 F.3d 23 8, 24 0 (8t h Cir.

19 95 ).

Dur in g th e pl ea ne go ti at io ns , Garci a in si st ed he di d no t br in g m et h t o R a pi d

Ci ty. At tri al , h e te st ifi ed he “ ne ve r ev er” br ou gh t meth in to So ut h Dak ot a. Aga in

at sen te nc in g, Gar ci a st at ed he was “ no t gu il ty o f br in gi ng dru gs to So ut h Dak ot a.”

Thu s Garci a co ul d no t si gn th e fact ua l ba si s st at em en t req ui red fo r a pl ea ag reem en t.

-2

-He can no t pr ov e th at he wou ld ha ve pl ead ed gu il ty bu t fo r hi s co un se l’s erro ne ou s

ad vi ce. Se e Ches ne

y v

. Unit ed St at es , 36 7 F.3 d 10 55

, 10 59 -6 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )
(p ris on er al le ge d at to rn ey fai le d to co m m un ic at e pr e-t ria l pl ea of

fer bu t st il l co ul d no t

de m on st rat e pr ejud ic e un de r St ri ckl an d be cau se he ad am an tl y de ni ed gu il t un de r oath

at tri al an d th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y co nc lu de d he co ul d no t es ta bl is h he wou ld ha ve

acce pt ed pl ea ag reem en t); Sa nd er s v. Unit ed St at es , 34 1 F.3 d 72 0, 72 2- 23 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ) (d en ia l of §2 25 5 m ot io n wit ho ut he ari ng u p h e ld whe n co un se l pr ov id ed

in accu rat e es ti m at e of pr is on te rm bu t at al l st ag es of cri m in al pr os ecu ti on , pr is on er

sh owe d no in di cat io n he wou ld be wil li ng to ad m it gu il t). Cf

. Lafl er v. Co op er , 13 2

S. Ct

. 13 76

, 13 89 (2 01 2) (ev en if a de fen da nt sh ows in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l

cau si ng hi m to reject a p le a o ffer , a tri al co ur t m ay ta ke in to acco un t a “ de fen da nt ’s

earl ie r ex pr es se d wil li ng ne ss , or un wil li ng ne ss , to acce pt res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s or he r

act io ns ” in ex erci si ng di sc ret io n whe th er to va c a t e th e co nv ic ti on , or le av e it

un di st ur be d)

.

Garci a al so al le ge s th at

, du rin g pl ea ne go ti at io ns , he was ne ve r ad vi se d of th e

op ti on to en te r an op en pl ea an d qu al ify fo r an ac ce pta nce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty red uc ti on

. In hi s bri ef, he as se rts he wou ld ha ve en te red an op en pl ea to th e co ns pi racy ch arg e (b ut wou ld no t ha ve op en ly pl ed to th e 20 05 di st rib ut in g ch arg e). At se nt en ci ng , he

di d sa y th at “ if I was gu il ty of so m e m in or m in im al th in gs th at I do ne , I am wro ng fo r

th at .” Howev er, h e wen t o n t o s ay , “ Bu t I am no t gu il ty o f br in gi ng dru gs to So ut h

Dak ot a. I am

no t g ui lt y

of t ha t.”

Garci a’s co un ts were gr ou pe d fo r se nt en ci ng

. An op en pl ea to on ly on e of th e

two gr ou pe d co un t s wou ld no t qu al ify hi m fo r a red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y

. Se e Unit

ed S ta te s v. Wa tt

re e , 4 31 F.3 d 61 8, 62 2- 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )
(in m ul ti pl e-co un t in di ct m en ts whe re co un ts are gr ou pe d fo r se n t e n c i ng , th e
de fe n d a n t mu st pl ead to al l gr ou pe d- co un ts in or de r to rece iv e acce pt an ce-o fres po ns ib il it y red uc ti on ; co un ts th at are no t g r o u p e d to ge th er are ex am in ed fo r th e

-3

-to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces in or de r to de te rm in e an acce pt an ce

- o f-re sp on si bi li ty

red uc ti on ).

Bec au se th e reco rd co nc lu si ve ly sh ows th at Garci a is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f, no

ev id en ti ary he ari ng was re qu ire d.

* * * * * * * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-4

-