FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT DEC 19, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12768 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 9 8 - 0 0 8 2 1 - C R - K MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N T O N I O L U I S C U R B E L O , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 19, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A n to n io L u is C u rb e lo ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o n r e m a n d o f h is m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le a to o n e c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 8 4 6 . C urbe l o a r gue s tha t( 1) on r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d ourm a nda t e ; ( 2) the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e a be c a us e the pl e a w a s i nva l i d, pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C r i m . P . 11; a nd ( 3) he r e c e i ve d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th m o r e f

u lly b e lo w , w e a f

f ir m . I n hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e a , C urbe l o e xpl a i ne d tha t , be f or e he de c i de d t o pl e a d gui l ty , hi s c ouns e l a dvi s e d hi m tha the w oul d r e c e i ve s a f e ty - va l ve s e nt e nc i ng, pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2, a nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d a gr e e d t o a si x-m on th b oo t -c am p sent ence . C urbel o cl ai m ed thatthese as sura nces prom pt ed hi m t o p l ea d. C urbel o al so expl ai ned, ho w ever , that , af t erhi s pre se nt ence i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) w a s pr e pa r e d, he l e a rne d tha the w a s i ne l i gi bl e f or s a f e ty - va l ve s e nt e nc i ng be c a us e of a pr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on a nd a c tua l l y f a c e d a m u c h g r e a te rs e n te n c e . C u rb e lo a r g u e d th a t h is p le a w a s , th e r e f o r e , c o e r c e d . A m a gi s tr a t e j udge he l d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng a nd r e c om m e nde d gr a nt i ng C urbe l o’ s m ot i on. D e s pi t e thi s r e c om m e nda t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on. C urbe l o appe a l e d, a nd w e r e m a nde d the c a s e t o the di s tr i c tc our tf or f ur the rpr oc e e di ngs i n ke e pi ng w i th U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C of i e l d, 272 F . 3d 1303, 13063

( 11th C i r . 2001) . O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our the l d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng, but ag ai n d en i ed C u rb el o ’ s m o t i o n . C u b el o u l t i m at el y w as sen t en ced t o 1 2 0 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t a s to e a c h c o u n t, to b e s e r v e d c o n c u rr e n tly . I. C urbe l o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d the s pi r i tof ourr e m a nd be c a us e i tf

a i l e d t o a r t i c ul a t e i t s r e a s on f orr e a c hi ng a c onc l us i on oppos i t e tha tof th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e a n d c o n c lu s o r ily d e n ie d h is m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le a . I n C o f

ie ld , w e a d d r e s s e d w h e th e ra d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y “w h o lly r e je c t a m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s c r e d ib ility f in d in g s w ith o u t r e h e a r in g w itn e s s te s tim o n y ” in d e n y in g a d e f

e n d a n t’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e . 2 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 5 . W e h e ld tha t , “ ge ne r a l l y a di s tr i c tc our tm us tr e he a rthe di s put e d t e s t i m ony be f or e r e j e c t i ng a m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons , ” butr e c ogni z e d a “ s m a l l e xc e pt i on [t o thi s gener al rul e] i n the ‘ ra re ca se ’ w here there . . . [i s] foun d i n the tra nscr i ptan a r t i c ul abl e ba s i s f

orr e j e c t i ng the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s or i gi na l r e s ol ut i on of c r e di bi l i ty a nd tha tba s i s . . . [ i s ] a r t i c ul a t e d by the di s tr i c tj udge . ” I d. a t1306. T he di s tr i c tc our ts a t i s f i e d ourm a nda t e . T he di s tr i c tc our the l d a de novo e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g , a s r e q u ir e d . S e e C o f ie ld , 2 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 5 . A t th is e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e a r d e x te n s iv e te s tim o n y . I n its p o s t-This argument will be addre ssed below, in conne ction with Curbelo’s ineff ective- 1 a ssi sta nc e -o f- c ouns e l c laim. The g overnment argues on appe al that Curbelo did not properly preserve his invalid- 2 guilty-plea

arguments, such that we should review for plain, rather than ha

rmless, error. Indeed, weno rm ally

review a de fendant’ s Rule11 argumentsfo r h armle ss error , p ur su ant to F e d. R.C rim.P . 1 1(h) . Unit e d St ate s v . Jon e s, 14 3 F .3 d 1 41 7, 14 18 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 8) . Und e r t

his standard, “ [a] varia

nce f rom the re quirements of [Rule 11] i s harmless er ror if it does not af

fec t substantial rights.” Fe d.R.Crim.P . 11(h). How ever , in United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59, 122 S.Ct . 1043, 1046, 152 L .Ed.2d 90 (2002), theSupreme Court held that, when a def endant fails to object to a Rule 11 violation in the district court, the a ppellate c ourt should reviewfor plain error

on ly . Und er t

hissta ndard , th ede fendant m

us t sh owtha

t th edis tric t c ourt ’se rror

wa s “plain, pre

judicial, and disreputa

ble to the judicial system.” I d. at 61, 65, 122 S.Ct. at 1047, 1050. We note that Curbelo did not expl icitly cite Rule 11 in his motion and that his counsel assure d the district court on remand that the Rule 11 colloquy had been conducte d “perfec tly .” H o w e v e r , w ef

urth e r n o t eth atC ur

b e l o a p p ri s e d th edi s tri c tc o urto f

h i s re m ai n i n gi nv al i d - gu i l typlea a rguments in his mot ion and in a pre -re -sentenc ing memorandum that wa s not pursued by Curbelo at re -sentenc ing or otherwise addresse d by

the district court. Ac cording ly , it is not re a dily c le ar whe ther C ur

be lo p re serv e d h is c laim t hat hi s guilty

ple a wa s invalid . Wefind

it 4 re m and o rder , the di stri ctcourtanal yz ed w hether thi s t es t i m on y s ug gest ed that C urbe l o’ s pl e a w a s notknow i ng a nd vol unt a ry , the r e by de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe pos t - r e m a nd pr oc e e di ngs w e r e notf orm e r e s how . T he di s tr i c tc our tw a s not r e q u ir e d to e x p la in its d is a g r e e m e n t w ith th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e . S e e id . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f

f ir m a s to th is is s u e . II. C urbe l o ne xta r gue s tha thi s pl e a w a s i nva l i d be c a us e he di d notr e c e i ve cl o se assi st an ce o f co u n sel an d b ecau se h i s p l ea w as n o tk n o w i n g an d v o l u n t ary, 1 a s ( 1) he w a s c oe r c e d t o pl e a d gui l ty by hi s c ouns e l ’ s m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons ; ( 2) the di stri ctcourtdi d n otadvi se hi m of the el em ent s of hi s off ense ; and (3) the di stri ct courtdi d n otadvi se hi m of the appl i cabl e s t atut ory m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence . 2unnece ssary to resolve this point, however , beca use the district cour

t did not commiterror, harmless or otherwise, a s discussed below. 5 W e w ill d is tu rb th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to d e n y a d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl eaon l y w hen i tconst i tut es an abuse of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M c C a r ty , 99 F . 3d 383, 385 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . A de c i s i on i s a n abus e of di s c r e t i on i f

i ti s a rbi tr a ry orunr e a s onabl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r e hm , 442 F . 3d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S .C t. 4 5 7 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . A f te rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c c e p ts h is p le a , b u t b e f o r e h e is s e n te n c e d , a de f e nda ntm a y w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e a i f he c a n “ s how a f

a i ra nd j us tr e a s on f

or r e que s t i ng the w i thdr a w a l . ” F e d. R . C r i m . P . 11( d) ( 2) ( B ) . I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B uc kl e s , 843 F . 2d 469, 472 ( 11th C i r . 1988) , w e he l d tha t , i n de t e r m i ni ng i f the d efen d an th as m eth i s b u rd en , w e w i l l co n si d er, i n t er al i a, (1 ) w h eth er cl o se a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l w a s a va i l abl e a nd ( 2) w he the rthe pl e a w a s know i ng a nd vol unt a ry . R e ga r di ng the know i ng- a nd- vol unt a ry f a c t orof thi s t e s t , w e ha ve sum m ar i ze d the di stri ctcourt ’ s duty a s a n o bl i gat i on t o add re ss the “ three core c onc e rns ” unde r l y i ng R ul e 11: w he the rthe ( 1) pl e a i s f r e e f r om c oe r c i on, ( 2) de f e nda ntunde r s t a nds the na tur e of the c ha r ge s , a nd ( 3) de f e nda ntknow s a nd unde r s t a nds the c ons e que nc e s of hi s gui l ty pl e a . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e rn a n d e z - F r a ir e , 2 0 8 F .3 d 9 4 5 , 9 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . R ul e 11 of

f e r s s pe c i f

i c gui da nc e on s a t i s f

y i ng thi s c or e - c onc e rn obl i ga t i on,6

r e qui r i ng the di s tr i c tc our tt o i nf or m the de f

e nda ntof

, a nd de t e r m i ne tha the u n d e r s ta n d s , in te ra lia , th e n a tu r e o f th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im a n d th e ap p lic ab le m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e . F e d .R .C r im .P . 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( G ) , ( I ) . A s t o th e n eed t o i n fo rm th e d efen d an to f th e n atu re o f th e ch arg es ag ai n st hi m , “ [f ] or si m pl e c harges . . . a r ea di ng of the i nd i ctm ent , fol l ow ed by an oppor tuni ty gi ve n the de f e nda ntt o a s k que s t i ons abouti t , w i l l us ua l l y s uf f i c e , ” but f o r“[ c ]h a r g e s o f

a m o r e c o m p le x n a tu r e , in c o rp o r a tin g e s o te r ic te r m s o rc o n c e p ts un fa m i l i art o the l ay m i nd ” am ore i n-dept h exp l anat i on m ay be neces sa ry . U ni t ed S t at es v. D eP ac e, 12 0 F . 3d 23 3, 23 7 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ). In U ni t ed S t at es v. S anchez, 6 5 0 F .2 d 7 4 5 , 7 4 6 , 7 4 8 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) , o u rp r e d e c e s s o rh e ld th a t p o s s e s s io n w ith i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m a r i

j ua na w a s a s uf

f i c i e nt l y s i m pl e c ha r ge tha tr e a di ng the i ndi c tm e nta nd a f

f or di ng the de f

e nda nta n oppor tuni ty t o a s k que s t i ons aboutthe c h a r g e s w a s s u f

f ic ie n t. I n de t e r m i ni ng i f

R ul e 11 w a s s a t i s f

i e d, w e c a n c ons i de rthe t e r m s of the pl e a a gr e e m e nt . S e e J one s , 143 F . 3d a t1420 ( appl y i ng ha r m l e s s - e rr ora na l y s i s a nd hol di ng tha tw e w i l l c ons i de rthe w r i tt e n pl e a a gr e e m e nt , a l ong w i th the tr a ns c r i pt of the pl e a c ol l oquy , s o l ong a s the w r i tt e n pl e a a gr e e m e ntw a s r e f e rr e d t o dur i ng the pl eacol l oq uy). M oreover, “ the re pres ent at i on s of the defendant. . . [a ta pl ea proceedi ng ] as w el l as any f i nd i ng s m ade by the j ud ge ac ce pt i ng the pl ea ,7

c ons t i tut e a f

or m i dabl e ba rr i e ri n a ny s ubs e que ntc ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ngs ” a nd a ny

“ [s ] ol em n d ec l ar at i on s i n o pen cou rtca rry astrong pres um pt i on of veri ty. ” J on es v. W hi t e, 99 2 F . 2d 15 48 , 15 56 (11th C i r. 19 93 ); se e a l so F ed. R . C i v. P . 52 (a ) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tappe l l a t e c our t s s houl d a l w a y s a f f or d a c e r t a i n a m ountof de f e r e nc e t o the tr i a l c our t ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e dl oc k, 12 F . 3d 18 5, 18 7 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( ho l di ng thatthere i s astrong pres um pt i on that st at em ent s m ade duri ng the pl eacol l oq uy ar e true) . B e f or e a na l y z i ng C urbe l o’ s s pe c i f i c c l a i m s , w e not e tha tC urbe l o w a s put un der oath atthe change-of-pl eahear i ng and i nform ed the di stri ctcourtthathe had r e a d th e p le a a g r e e m e n t, h e u n d e r s to o d its te r m s , a n d th e s e te r m s r e p r e s e n te d h is f ul l a gr e e m e ntw i th the gove rnm e nt . M or e ove r , C urbe l o’ s c ouns e l t e s t i f i e d a tthe e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ngs tha the r e vi e w e d the pl e a a gr e e m e ntw i th C urbe l o be f or e , a nd i n the m i nu t es prec edi ng , the change-of-pl eahear i ng and that , w hi l e he r evi ew ed th e lik e ly p le a - c o llo q u y q u e s tio n s , h e o n ly to ld C u rb e lo to r e s p o n d tru th f u lly . W hi l e C urbel o h as cl ai m ed thathe never re ad or ot herw i se re vi ew ed the pl ea a gr e e m e nt , he ha s of

f e r e d nothi ng t o ove r c om e the “ f or m i dabl e ba rr i e r ” c r e a t e d by hi s e a r l i e rpl e a - c ol l oquy s t a t e m e nt s , s a ve c l a i m s m a de a f t e rhe l e a rne d tha the w oul d ge ta hi ghe rs e nt e nc e tha n e xpe c t e d. S e e J one s , 992 F . 2d a t1556. A l s o, th e d istrict co u rt ev id en tl y f o u n d C u rb elo ’s p lea- co ll o q u y s tatem en ts an d C u rb elo ’s8

c ouns e l ’ s t e s t i m ony m or e c r e di bl e the n C urbe l o’ s l a t e rc l a i m s , a nd w e f i nd no re as on t o d epri ve the di stri ctcourt ’ s c re di bi l i ty f i nd i ng of i t s due defe re nce. S ee F e d .R .C iv .P . 5 2 ( a ) . A s t o C urbe l o’ s c l a i m tha the w a s c oe r c e d i nt o pl e a di ng gui l ty be c a us e he b e l i e v e d h e w o u l d g e ts a f e ty - v a l v e s e n t e n c i n g a n d as i x - mo n th b o o t - c a mp s e nt e nc e , the pl e a a gr e e m e nta dvi s e d C urbe l o tha tr e c e i ptof s a f e ty - va l ve s e nt e nc i ng w a s c ont i nge nton hi s e l i gi bi l i ty a nd tha ta ny s a f e ty - va l ve - s e nt e nc i ng re com m endat i on w as no tbi nd i ng on the di stri ctcourt . L i kew i se , bo th the pl ea agre em entand the di stri ctcourtadvi se d C urbel o thatany e st i m at ed se nt ence gi ven b y h is c o u n s e l w a s n o n - b in d in g . I n d e e d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e v e n in f o r m e d C u rb e lo th a t th e e n tir e p le a a g r e e m e n t w a s n o n - b in d in g a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld i m pos e a s e nt e nc e m or e s e ve r e tha n tha tc ont e m pl a t e d by C urbe l o, hi s c ouns e l , or the gove rnm e nt . B e c a us e of the s e w a rni ngs , C urbe l o s houl d ha ve know n tha the w as no tgu ar ant ee d a re du ct i on or a s ent ence bel ow the appl i cabl e m andat ory m i ni m um a nd tha the s houl d notba s e hi s de c i s i on t o pl e a d gui l ty s ol e l y on the p r o m is e o f

a lo w s e n te n c e . A s t o C urbe l o’ s c l a i m tha the ne ve rw a s a dvi s e d of the e l e m e nt s of

the char ge agai nsthi m , i ti s true thatthe el em ent s w er e nei ther c on t ai ned i n the pl ea agre em entno r di sc usse d atthe change-of-pl eahear i ng . H ow ever , the di stri ctcourt9

r e a d th e in d ic tm e n t a t th e c h a n g e - o f - p le a h e a r in g a n d g a v e C u rb e lo th e o p p o r tu n ity to e x p r e s s a n y c o n f

u s io n o ra s k a n y q u e s tio n s ab o u t th e c h a r g e c o n ta in e d th e r e in . B ec ause conspi ra cy t o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne i s asi m pl e c harge, thi s r e a di ng of

the i ndi c tm e nta nd s ubs e que ntoppor tuni ty t o a s k que s t i ons of the i ndi c tm e ntw a s s uf

f i c i e nt . S e e D e P a c e , 120 F . 3d a t237; S a nc he z , 650 F . 2d a t746. A s to C u rb e lo ’s c la im th a t h e n e v e rw a s a d v is e d o f th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

h is gui l ty pl e a , na m e l y the appl i c abl e m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e , i ti s true tha tthe appl i cabl e m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence w as no tm ent i on ed atthe change-of-pl ea he a r i ng. H ow e ve r , the pl e a a gr e e m e nta dvi s e d C urbe l o tha thi s c ha r ge c a rr i e d a t e n- y e a rm a nda t ory m i ni m um t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt . B e c a us e thi s C our tc a n l ook t o the pl e a a gr e e m e ntt o de t e r m i ne i f R ul e 11’ s c or e c onc e rns w e r e s a t i s f i e d, a s the d is tr ic t c o u r t r e f

e r e n c e d th a t p le a a g r e e m e n t a t th e c h a n g e - o f - p le a h e a r in g , it is s uf f i c i e nttha tthe i nf

or m a t i on w a s i nc l ude d i n the pl e a a gr e e m e nt . S e e J one s , 143 F . 3d a t1420. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng C u rb e lo ’s m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le ab e c a u s e it d id n o t c o m m it e rr o rin a c c e p tin g th e p le a , a n d w e a f f ir m a s to th is is s u e . S e e M c C a r ty , 9 9 F .3 d a t 3 8 5 .

III. C u rb e lo f

in a lly a r g u e s th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to (1 ) ap p ri se C u rb el o o f h i s l eg al o p t i o n s, n am el y j u ry tri al , an d t o p rep are a d efen se10

(“ C l ai m 1”); (2) kno w appl i cabl e l aw , nam el y the sa fe ty- val ve cr i t er i a ( “ C l ai m 2”); (3) r equestor re vi ew di sc ov ery a nd the go vernm ent ’ s e vi dence (“ C l ai m 3”); ( 4) i nve s t i ga t e C urbe l o’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory ( “ C l a i m 4” ) ; ( 5) pur s ue doubl e j e opa r dy orc ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l de f e ns e s ( “ C l a i m 5” ) ; a nd ( 6) a s s ur e tha tC urbe l o unde r s t ood th e co n seq u en ces o f h i s g u i l ty p l ea an d p l ed g u i l ty k n o w i n g l y an d v o l u n t ari l y, n a m e ly b y ( a ) n o t r e v ie w in g th e p le a a g r e e m e n t w ith C u rb e lo , ( b ) e rr o n e o u s ly a s s u r i n g Cu rb e l o th a th e w o u l d r e c e i v e s a f e ty - v a l v e s e n t e n c i n g a n d a b o o t - c a mp s e nt e nc e , a nd ( c ) t e l l i ng C urbe l o t o s i m pl y “ go a l ong” w i th the pl e a - c ol l oquy q u e s tio n s ( “C la im 6 ” ) . P ur s ua ntt o S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 687, 104 S . C t . 2052, 20 64 , 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (19 84 ) adefe nd antar gu i ng i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -of- coun se l m us ts how tha t( 1) hi s c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nta nd ( 2) the de f

i c i e nt pe r f or m a nc e pr e

j udi c e d the de f

e ns e . T o pr ove the de f

i c i e nt - pe r f

or m a nc e pr ong of the S tri ckl and t es t , the defendantm ustshow thathi s c ou nsel ’ s per form ance w as u n r e a s o n ab le u n d e rp r e v a ilin g p r o f e s s io n a l n o r m s . I d . a t 6 8 8 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . U nd erthi s m ea sure , coun se l i s noti ncom pet entso l on g as the part i cul arapproach t a ke n c oul d be c ons i de r e d s ound s tr a t e gy . C ha ndl e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 3d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t, in r e vi e w i ng c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e , appe l l a t e c our t s m us tbe hi ghl y de f e r e nt i a l a nd11

m u s t m a k e e v e ry e f

f o r t to e lim in a te th e d is to r tin g e f f e c ts o f h in d s ig h t a n d e v a lu a te the c onduc tf

r om c ouns e l ’ s pe r s pe c t i ve a tthe t i m e . S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t689, 104 S . C t . a t2065. I nde e d, the S upr e m e C ourtha s i ndi c a t e d tha tthe r e i s a s tr ong pres um pt i on thatcoun se l ’ s c on du ctfe l l w i thi n the ra ng e of r ea sonabl e profes si on al a s s i s t a nc e . I d. T o pr ove the pr e j udi c e pr ong of

the S tr i c kl a nd t e s t , “ [ t ] he d ef en d an t m u st sh o w th at th er e is a re as o n ab le p ro b ab il ity th at, b u t fo r c o u n se l’ s unpr of e s s i ona l e rr or s , the r e s ul tof the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . ” I d. a t694, 104 S . C t . a t2068. A r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty i s one s uf f i c i e ntt o unde r m i ne c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o m e . I d . A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , w e hol d tha tthe r e c or d i s nots uf f i c i e nt l y de ve l ope d t o r e vi e w C l a i m s 1- 5. S e e M a s s a r o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 538 U . S . 500, 504- 505, 123 S . C t . 16 90 , 16 94 (200 3) (hol di ng thatappel l at e c ou rt s gener al l y w i l l no tre vi ew i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -of- coun se l cl ai m s on d i re ctappeal , as the re cord usual l y has notbe e n s uf

f i c i e nt l y de ve l ope d a s t o c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e a tthi s poi nti n the pr oc e e di ngs , a nd tha tthe pr ope ra r e na f ors uc h c l a i m s i s c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w ) . T he di stri ctcourthas notexpl ored these i ss ues, so thatw e c anno tdet erm i ne w hether C u rb e lo ’s c o u n s e l w a s d e f ic ie n t a n d C u rb e lo w a s p r e ju d ic e d in th e s e m a n n e r s . A cc ordi ng l y, w e w i l l no taddres s these cl ai m s 1-5. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T yndal e, 20 9 F . 3d 12 92 , 12 94 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( decl i ni ng t o add re ss i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -12

o f - c o u n s e l c la im s ab o u t w h ic h th e r e c o r d w a s in s u f f ic ie n tly d e v e lo p e d ) . W e n o te th a t Cur be lo m ay ra i se these cl ai m s on col l at er al re vi ew . W e hol d, ho w ever , that th e r e c o r d is s u f

f ic ie n tly d e v e lo p e d to r e v ie w C la im 6 , a s th e p o in ts o f th is c la im w e r e e x p lo r e d a t tw o e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g s . S e e id . R egar di ng the m er i t s of C urbel o’ s c l ai m thathi s c ou nsel fa i l ed t o ass ure that he unde r s t ood the c ons e que nc e s of hi s gui l ty pl e a a nd pl e d gui l ty know i ngl y a nd vo l un t ar i l y, C urbel o st at ed atthe change-of-pl eahear i ng , and C urbel o’ s c ou nsel t es t i fi ed, thatC urbel o’ s c ou nsel re vi ew ed the pl eaagre em entw i th C urbel o, as d is c u s s e d ab o v e . C u rb e lo ’s c o u n s e l a ls o te s tif ie d th a t h e o n ly to ld C u rb e lo th a t h e w o u ld r e c e i ve s a f

e ty - va l ve s e nt e nc i ng i f

he qua l i f

i e d a nd tha t , a ttha tpoi nt , both he a nd C urbel o b el i eved thatC urbel o h ad no pri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s. A s s oo n as C urbe l o’ s c ouns e l l e a rne d tha tC urbe l o ha d a pr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on, he im m e d ia te ly in f

o rm e d C u rb e lo a n d d is c u s s e d o th e ro p tio n s f o ra r e d u c e d s e n te n c e . A l though the r e c or d i nc l ude s tr a ns c r i pt s f r om a c ha nge - of

- pl e a he a r i ng de m ons tr a t i ng tha tC urbe l o’ s c ouns e l pr e vi ous l y ha d r e pr e s e nt e d hi m on a f e l ony conv i ct i on , the fa ctthathe forgotabou tthi s c on vi ct i on i s notun re as on abl e, esp eci al l y as C u rb el o t est i fi ed th ath e al so h ad fo rg o tt en , su ch th ati td o es n o tri se t o the l evel of defi ci entperf orm ance . S ee S tri ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at68 8, 10 4 S . C t . at13

2065. C urbe l o’ s c ouns e l l i ke w i s e t e s t i f i e d tha the ne ve rpr om i s e d C urbe l o a s i xm on th b oo t -c am p sent ence and o nl y m ent i on ed thi s a s a n o pt i on i n the eventthat C u rb e lo m e r ite d o th e rr e d u c tio n s . C urbe l o’ s c ouns e l f

ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha the di d nott e l l C urbe l o t o “ go a l ong w ith ” th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e ’s q u e s tio n s d u r in g th e R u le 1 1 c o llo q u y , b u t m e r e ly r e vi e w e d the l i ke l y que s t i ons a nd t ol d C urbe l o t o a ns w e rtruthf ul l y . I nde e d, C u rb el o ad m i tt ed th ath i s co u n sel n ev er t o l d h i m t o an sw er “ yes” t o th ese q u e s tio n s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e v id e n tly f o u n d C u rb e lo ’s c o u n s e l’s te s tim o n y c r e d ib le . C u rb el o h as o ffered n o th i n g t o u n d erm i n e th e cred i b i l i ty o f th ese st at em en t s, e xc e pthi s c l a i m s m a de a f t e rhe l e a rne d tha the w oul d notr e c e i ve the s e nt e nc e he e x p e c te d . W e f

in d n o r e a s o n to d e p r iv e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c r e d ib ility f in d in g o f its du e def er ence . S ee F ed. R . C i v. P . 52 (a ). T here fore , the re cord dem on stra t es that C urbe l o’ s c ouns e l di d notpe r f or m de f i c i e nt l y a s t o C l a i m 6. S e e S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U .S . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 4 . M or e ove r , C urbe l o f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty , s uf f i c i e nt t o u nd erm i ne confi dence i n the pl eaproceedi ng s, thathe w ou l d n othave pl ed g u ilty if h is c o u n s e l h a d b e h a v e d d if f e r e n tly th a n a lle g e d , a s C u rb e lo s u f f ic ie n tly w as i nform ed athi s c hang e- of-pl eahear i ng of the consequences of hi s gui l ty pl ea14

and thatany pre di ct i on s m ade by hi s c ou nsel w er e non -bi nd i ng sugg es t i on s, as di sc usse d abo ve. T here fore , the re cord do es no tdem on stra t e thatC urbel o w as pr e j udi c e d. S e e i d. a t694, 104 S . C t . a t2068. A c c or di ngl y , C urbe l o ha s not e s tab lis h e d in e f

f e c tiv e - a s s is ta n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l a s to C la im 6 , a n d w e a f f ir m a s to th is i s s ue a s i tr e ga r ds thi s c l a i m . W e not e tha t , be c a us e C urbe l o’ s c ouns e l w a s not i ne f f e c t i ve i n thi s m a nne ra nd be c a us e thi s c l a i m e d i ns t a nc e of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l is th e o n e th a t s p e a k s d ir e c tly to th e v a lid ity o f h is g u ilty pl e a , C urbe l o r e c e i ve d c l os e a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l a thi s c ha nge - of - pl e a he a r i ng, s u f f ic ie n t to s a tis f

y R u le 1 1 . S e e B u c k le s , 8 4 3 F .2 d a t 4 7 2 .

I V . C on c l u s i on I n c o n c lu s io n , w e a f

f ir m th e d e n ia l o f

C u rb e lo ’s m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is gu i l ty pl eaw i tho utaddres si ng al l bu ton e of hi s i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -of- coun se l c l a i m s . S e e T y nda l e , 209 F . 3d a t1294 ( a f f i r m i ng the de f

e nda nt ’ s c onvi c t i on on o th e rg r o u n d s , b u td e c l i n i n g t o ru l e o n h i s i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c l a i ms w h e n th e r e c o r d w a s in s u f f ic ie n tly d e v e lo p e d a s to th e s e m a tte r s ) . AF F I RME D.