## 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- 15 47

__ __ __ __ __ _

Ch arl es Sam

ue l Wats on , Jr., *

*

Pet it io ne r - 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 * So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

. Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

*

Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

13 , 20 12

Fi le d: Ju ne 26 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re BYE, SMI TH, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, Ch arl es W at so n, Jr

., fil ed a m ot io n to va cat e th e

16 5- m on th se nt en ce he rece iv ed aft er he pl ead ed gu il ty to a dr ug co ns pi racy ch arg e.

The di st ric t co ur t su m

m ari ly de ni ed th e m ot io n be cau se W at so n waiv ed th e rig ht to 1

br in g a § 22 55 m ot io n in hi s pl ea ag reem en t. W e gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

on th e is su e of whe th er th e waiv er was en fo rcea bl e to th e ex te nt W at so n cl ai m ed

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l in m at te rs di rect ly rel at ed to hi s pl ea ag reem en t. W e

no w affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.I

On Octo be r 5, 20 08

, W at so n de li ve red he ro in to Jo se ph Van ho e in Io wa Ci ty,

Io wa. W it hi n a few ho ur s, Van ho e was fo un d de ad in hi s apa rtment. Van ho e ha d a

fres h ne ed le m ark in hi s arm

. Po li ce fo un d two hypo de rm ic ne ed le s wit h li qu id in si de

th em ne ar Van ho e's bo dy, al on g wit h s e v e r a l ba gg ie co rn ers co nt ai ni ng he ro in

res id ue . An au to ps y

co nc lu de d Van ho e d ie d fr om eth an ol an d h ero in po is on in g.

A fed eral gr an d jury in di ct ed W at so n wit h: (1 ) co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e co cai ne

ba se an d he ro in res ul ti ng in de at h in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A),
( b ) ( 1 ) ( C), an d 84 6; (2 ) di st rib ut io n of he ro in res ul ti ng in de at h in vi ol at io n o f 2 1

U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(C) ; an d ( 3) di st rib ut io n of he ro in in vi ol at io n of 21

U.S

. C

. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(C)

. W at so n pl ead ed gu il ty to th e co ns pi racy co un t

pu rs ua nt to a writ te n pl ea ag reem en t. The co ns pi racy co u n t c a r r ie d a m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o f 24 0 m on th s d ue to th e al le ga ti on th at de at h re su lt ed fro m th e

di st rib ut io n of the co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 84 1( b) (1 )(C) (m an da ti ng "a te rm of im pr is on m en t of no t le ss th an twen ty y ears " fo r

cas es in vo lv in g sc he du le I or II co n t ro ll ed su bs ta nc es "i f de at h or se rio us bo di ly

in jury resu lt s fr om

th e u se of s uc h s ub st an ce" ).

In th e pl ea ag reem en t, W at so n wai v e d t h e rig ht to fil e a di rect ap pe al of hi s

se nt en ce. He al so waiv ed th e rig ht to co ll at eral ly atta ck hi s s en te nc e. The re le va nt

pr ov is io n i n t he pl ea ag reem en t s ta te d:

W ai ver of Rig ht to Co ll at er al Att ac k

. The de fen da nt al so un de rs ta nd s th at he ha s a rig ht to at ta ck hi s co nv ic ti on , an d/ or th e se nt en ce im po se d,

co ll at eral ly on th e gr ou n d s th at it was im po se d in vi ol at io n of th e Co ns ti tu ti on or la ws of th e Uni te d S t a te s; th at th e de fen da nt rece iv ed

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce fro m hi s at to rn ey ; th at th e Co ur t was wit ho ut

p r o p er juri sd ic ti on ; or th at th e co nv ic ti on an d/ or se nt en ce wer e

ot he r w i s e su bjec t to co ll at eral at ta ck

. The de fen da nt un de rs ta nd s th at

-2

-su ch an at ta ck is us ua ll y br ou gh t th ro ug h a m ot io n pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C.

§ 22 55

. The de fen da nt an d th e de fen da nt 's at to rn ey ha ve r e v i e w e d

Sect io n 22 55

, an d th e de fen da nt un de rs ta nd s ap pl ic ab le rig ht s un de r th e

st at ut e. The de fen da nt 's at to rn ey ha s fu ll y di sc us se d an d ex pl ai ne d th e de fen da nt 's rig ht to at ta ck th e co nv ic ti on an d/ or se nt en ce co ll at eral ly
wit h th e de fen da nt

. Und ers ta nd in g th os e rig ht s, an d ha vi ng th or ou gh ly
di sc us se d th os e r i gh ts wit h hi s at to rn ey , th e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly an d

vo lu nt ari ly waiv es th e ri gh t to co ll at eral ly at ta ck hi s con vi ct io n and /o r

se nt en ce. The de fen da nt sp eci fic al ly ack no wled ge s th at th e de ci si on to
waiv e th e rig ht to ch al le ng e an y la te r cl ai m of th e in effe ct iv en es s of hi s

co un se l was m ad e by hi m al on e n ot wit hs ta nd in g a ny adv ic e h e m ay or

m ay no t ha ve rece iv ed fro m hi s at to rn ey reg ard in g th at rig ht

. Reg ard le ss of an y ad vi ce th e de fen da nt 's at to rn ey m ay ha ve gi ve n hi m , in ex ch an ge f

o r th e co nc es si on s m ad e by th e Uni te d St at es in th is Agr eem en t, th e de fen da nt he reb y kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly waiv es th e

r ig ht to co ll at eral ly at ta ck th e co nv ic ti on an d/ or se nt en ce. The r i g h t s waiv ed by th e de fen da nt in cl ud e th e rig ht to ch al le ng e th e am o u nt of

an y fin e or res ti tu ti on in an y co ll at eral at ta ck in cl ud in g, bu t no t li m it ed

to , a m ot io n b ro ug ht un de r Sec ti on 22 55

.

Pl ea Ag reem en t at ¶ 14

.

Dur in g W at so n's pl ea he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t di sc us se d th e co ll at eral at ta ck

waiv er wi th W at so n. Th e fo ll owi ng co ll oq uy too k p la ce:

THE COURT: Peo pl e who ge t do ne ap pe al in g, go in g as far as th ey can

go , or di na ril y ha ve a rig ht fo r a pe rio d of on e y ea r t o br in g a li m it ed

at ta ck on th ei r co nv ic ti on

. So m et im es it is cal le d po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f,

so m et im es it is refe rred to by th e c r i mi na l co de Sect io n 22 55 th at it is

fil ed un de r us ua ll y

in Fed eral Co ur t. I se e in Para gr ap h 14 of th e Pl ea Agr eem en t th at y ou ha ve gi ve n up th at as well

. In th e Pl ea Agr eem en t
it sa y s th at y ou un de rs ta n d t h a t you ha ve th at rig ht

, th at y ou an d y ou r la wy er ha ve di sc us se d th at rig ht

, an d th at un de rs ta nd in g t h e r ig ht to
br in g t ha t l im it ed att ack , y ou kn owi ng ly an d v ol un ta ril y waiv e o r gi ve

up th e r i g h t to co ll at eral ly at ta ck y ou r co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce. Ofte nt im es th is rig ht is us ed to br in g a cl ai m th at y ou r la wy er ren de red

-3

-in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, tha t y ou r la wy er j us t wasn 't up to th e

ta sk or le ft so m et hi ng ou t or di d so m et hi ng wro ng al on g th e way

. Here
in th e Pl ea Agr eem en t it sa y s, "Th e defe nda nt sp eci fic al ly ack no wled ge s th at th e de ci si on to waiv e th e rig ht to ch al le ng e a n y la te r cl ai m of

i n effe ct iv e as si st an ce of hi s co un se l was m ad e by hi m al on e ,

no twi th st an di ng an y

ad vi ce h e m ay

or m ay no t ha ve rece iv ed fro m hi s

at to rn ey reg ard in g th at rig ht ." So yo u do n' t ge t to br in g a cl

ai m la te r th at M r

. I ng ra m wa s in effe ct

iv e in re co m m end

in g th is pl

ea

ag re em ent

. Do y ou un de rs ta nd th at ?

THE DE FENDANT: Yes, s ir.

Pl ea Tr. at 15 -1 6 (e m

ph as is ad de d)

.

The di st ric t co ur t l a t e r se nt en ced W at so n to 16 5 m on th s of im pr is on m en t,

de pa rti ng be lo w th e 24 0- m on th m an da to ry m in im um aft er gr an ti ng th e go ve rn m en t's

m ot io n fo r a s ub st an ti al ass is ta nc e d ep art ur e un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( e). The ot he r

two co un ts ag ai ns t Wats on were d is m is se d p ur su an t t o t he pl ea ag reem en t.

W it hi n a y ear aft er be in g se nt en ced

, W at so n fil ed a m ot io n to va cat e hi s

se nt en ce un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. The m ot io n al le ge d fo ur gr ou nd s fo r se tt in g as id e

th e co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce: (1 ) th e se nt en ce was il le ga l be cau se it was ba se d up on

a fin di ng W at so n was res po ns ib le fo r fif ty gr am s or m or e of co cai ne ba se ev en th ou gh

th e pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR ) on l y a t tri bu te d 1.6 gr am s of co cai ne ba se di rect ly to

W at so n; (2 ) th e s en te nc e was il le ga l du e to th e en ha nc em en t ba se d on Jo se ph

Van ho e's de at h; (3 ) th e rece ip t of im pr op er ad vi ce fro m hi s at to r n e y w it h reg ard to

en te rin g in to th e co op e r a t i o n ag reem en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t; an d (4 ) in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l, in cl ud in g in effe ct iv e ad vice W at son re ce ive d re ga rd ing the plea

ag reem en t i ts el f.

The di st ric t co ur t d e n i e d th e se ct io n 22 55 m ot io n wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary

he ari ng , en fo rci ng th e co ll at eral at ta ck waiv er in W at so n's pl ea ag reem en t. The

-4

-di st ric t co ur t al so la te r de ni ed W a t s o n ' s req ue st fo r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

.

W at so n ren ewed hi s req ue st fo r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y in ou r co ur t. W e gr an te d

W at so n's req ue st in pa rt, li m it i n g i t "t o th e qu es ti on whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t

co rrec tl y en fo rced W at so n's waiv er of hi s rig ht to at ta ck hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce

in a pr oc eed in g un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 ba se d on in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l."

Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed

.

II

W e rev ie w i ss ue s rel at ed to pl ea ag reem en ts de no vo , in cl ud in g th e

in te rp ret at io n of a waiv er of ap pe ll at e rig ht s or a waiv er of t he rig ht to co ll at eral ly

at ta ck a se nt en ce an d co nv ic ti on

. See Uni te d St at es v. Lov el ace, 56 5 F.3 d 10 80

, 10 84
(8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

Ci ti ng DeRo o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 23 F.3d 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ), W at so n a rg ue s

th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in en fo rci ng th e co ll at eral at ta ck waiv er in hi s pl ea ag reem en t

be cau se he al le ge d in hi s se ct io n 22 55 m ot io n th at th e g ui lt y pl ea i ts el f was ta in te d
by ine ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l in vi ol at io n of hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh ts . In

DeRo o, we st at ed th e "[d ]ism is sa l of a se ct io n 22 55 m ot io n on th e ba si s of a waiv er

in th e pl ea ag reem en t i s i n a p p r o pr ia te whe n th e de fen da nt 's cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce rel at e to th e ne go ti at io n of

, an d en try in to

, th e pl ea ag reem en t an d waiv er."

22 3 F.3 d at 92 4. W e de te rm in ed a "d eci si on to en te r in to a pl ea ag reem en t can no t be

kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary whe n th e pl ea ag reem en t it se lf is th e res ul t of ad vi ce ou ts id e

'th e ran ge of co m

pe te nc e de m an de d of at to rn ey s in cri m in al cas es .'" Id

. at 9 2 3

- 2 4
(q uo ti ng Hil l v. Lo c k h a rt, 47 4 U.S. 52

, 56 (1 98 5) ). Thu s, "jus ti ce di ct at es th at a

cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l in co nn ect io n wit h th e ne go ti at io n of a

co op erat io n ag reem en t can no t be ba rred by th e ag reem en t it se lf

– th e ve ry pr od uc t of

th e al le ge d in effe ct iv en es s." Id

. a t 9 2 4 (q uo ti ng Jo ne s v. Uni te d St at es , 16 7 F.3 d

11 42 , 11 45 (7t h C ir. 1 99 9) ).

-5

-Our co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly not ed th e te ns io n b et ween a br oa d re ad in g o f DeRo o

an d th e Su pr em e Co ur t's l o n g r e c o gn it io n of a de fen da nt 's ab il it y to waiv e rig ht s

gu aran te ed by th e Si xt h Am en dm en t, in cl ud in g th e rig ht to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l. See Ch es ne y v. Uni te d St at es , 36 7 F.3 d 10 55

, 10 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ci ti ng

Jo hn so n v . Zerbs t, 3 04 U.S. 45 8, 4 68 -6 9 (1 93 8) ). In C he sn ey , we exp la in ed :

If a cri m in al de fen da nt is ab le to ne go ti at e su bs ta nt ia l co nc es si on s fro m th e pr os ecu ti o n , b u t on ly on th e co nd it io n th at th e de fen da nt waiv e a

po te nt ia l fu tu re cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, do es "jus ti ce"
real ly di ct at e th at th is co ur t refu se to en fo rce su ch a n ag reem en t in al l
ci rcu m st an ces ? If th e go ve rn m en t can no t ob ta in th e be ne fit of av oi di ng

co ll at eral li ti ga ti on un de r se ct io n 22 55

, th en th e go ve rn m en t m ay no t be
wil li ng to of

fer cert ai n co n c e ss io ns , a nd a de fen da nt m ay be un ab le to

se cu re th e ba rg ai n m os t fav or ab le to hi s in te res ts

. To req ui re th at

co nc lu si on wou ld se em , in J u s t ic e Fran kf ur te r's fam ou s wor ds

, "t o im pr is on a m an in hi s pr iv il eg es an d cal l it th e Co ns ti tu ti on ." Ada m s v. Uni te d St at es ex rel

. McC an n, 31 7 U.S. 26 9, 28 0, 63 S.Ct

. 23 6, 87 L.Ed.

26 8 (1 94 2)

.

Id . at 1 05 8- 59

.

Ch es ne y su gg es te d th a t pe rh ap s DeRo o sh ou ld be refi ne d to st an d fo r th e

fo ll owi ng pro po si ti on :

[A] ge ne ral waiv er of th e rig ht to br in g po st -co nv i c t i o n or

po st -s en te nc in g cl ai m s un de r se ct io n 22 55 wou ld no t be su ffi ci en t to
waiv e su ch a cl ai m

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l, b ut an ex pl ic it
waiv er of th e Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to co un se l

– whi ch ex pl ai ne d th e

co nc ep t of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l an d th e ba si c ram ifi cat io ns of waiv in g a cl ai m th at in effe ct iv en es s in flu en ced th e si g n i n g o f th e waiv er – wou ld be co ns id ered kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. Cf. Fare tt a v. Cal ifo rn ia

, 42 2 U.S. 80 6, 83 5- 36

, 95 S.Ct

. 25 25

, 45 L.Ed.2 d 56 2 (1 97 5)

. Un d e r t h e la w of th is ci rcu it

, so lo ng as su ch a waiv er of Si xt h

-6

-Am en dm en t rig ht s di d no t res ul t in a "m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce," And is

,

33 3 F .3d at 8 91 -9 2, t he waiv er wo ul d b e en fo rcea bl e.

Id . at 1 05 9.

Ch es ne y ul ti m at el y di d no t ad op t su ch a refi ne m en t of DeRo o be cau se

"Ch es ne y 's waiv er di d no t sp eci fic al ly m en ti on th e Si xt h Am en dm en t or th e rig ht to

effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, an d th e co ll oq uy wit h th e co ur t at th e ti m e of

se nt en ci ng was no m or e sp e c i f i c th an th e ge ne ral writ te n waiv er." Id

. The

go ve rn m en t no ne th el es s ur ge s us to ad op t C h e s n e y's di ct a as a ho ld in g in th is cas e

be cau se th e co ll at eral at ta ck pr ov is io n in W at so n's pl ea ag reem en t ex pl ic it ly refe rred

to th e rig ht to br in g a cl ai m fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

sp eci fic al ly dis cu ss ed th e wai ve r wit h Wats on du rin g t he pl ea co ll oq uy.

W e are no t in cl in ed to de ci de whe th er to ad op t Ch es ne y 's refi ne m en t of DeRo o

in th is pa rti cu la r cas e, ho wev er, be cau se th e pa rti es fai le d to ad dr es s an is su e we fin d

di ffi cu lt to ig no re in de te rm in in g whe th er W at so n kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly waiv ed

hi s rig ht to br in g an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl a i m wit h res pe ct to m at te rs di rect ly

rel at ed to th e pl ea ag r eem en t. Eth ic s op in io ns fro m va rio us st at es ha ve ad dr es se d

whe th er a de fen da nt 's at to rn e y l ab or s un de r a co nf li ct of in te res t whe n ad vi si ng a

cl ie nt to waiv e an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l cl ai m , wit h co nf l i ct in g res ul ts

. 2

C o mp a r e P r o f'l Eth ic s Co m m

. fo r th e St at e Bar of Tex

. Op. No. 57 1 (2 00 6) 2 (co nc lu di ng a de fen se la wy er who ha s "n o cau se fo r an y reas on ab le co nc ern as to hi s effe ct iv en es s in rep res en ti ng th e d efen da nt " wo ul d n ot ha ve a co nf li ct of in te res t in
ad vi si ng a cl ie nt to waiv e an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m ), an d Ariz

. St at e Bar Co m m

.

on th e Ru le s of Prof'l Co nd uc t Op. 95 -0 8 (19 95 ) (co nc lu di ng a de fen se lawyer m ay ad vi se a cl ie nt to waiv e an in effe c t i v e a s s i st an ce cl ai m be cau se "[t ]here is a si gn ifi can t di ffer en ce be twee n a de fen da nt 's cl a im th at a co ur t sh ou ld rev is it hi s

se nt en ce be cau se of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l an d a de fen da nt 's cl ai m ag ai ns t
hi s la wy er [fo r m al pr act ic e]"), wit h Ala. St at e Bar Fo rm al Eth i c s Op. RO 20 11 -0 2 (2 01 1) (co nc lu di ng "a co nf li ct of in te res t ex is ts whe re a la wy er m us t co un se l hi s cl ie nt on whe th er to waiv e a ny rig ht to pu rs ue an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l

-7

-W at so n do es no t cl ai m hi s co un se l la bo red un de r a co nf li ct of in te res t whe n ad vi si ng

hi m to en te r th e pl ea ag reem en t, an d th e pa rti es di d no t br ie f th is is su e. W e th eref or e

be li ev e it pr ud en t to fo reg o th e is su e of whe th er DeRo o s h o u l d b e refi ne d by

Ch es ne y 's su gg es ti on s un ti l th is rel at ed is su e on a po te nt ia l co nf li ct of in te res t is fu ll y

ai red by the ad ve rs ari al pro ces s.

In st ead

, we accept the governm en t's in vi ta ti on to de te rm in e whe th er th e di st ric t

co ur t sh ou ld be affi rm ed in an y ev en t be cau se W at so n's in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m

fai ls on th e m eri ts . See Un it ed Sta te s v. Cas te ll an os , 60 8 F.3d 10 10

, 10 15 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ) (n ot in g waiv er is a pr ud en ti al rat he r th an a juri sd ic ti on al co nc ep t an d do es no t

ba r ap pe ll at e rev ie w). In o rd er t o s at is fy th e p reju di ce pr on g of th e St ric kl an d te st 3

in th e gu il ty pl ea co nt ex t, a de fen da nt m us t es ta bl is h a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at he

wou ld ha ve ex erci se d h is rig ht to a tr ia l b ut for co un se l's in effe ct iv en es s. Hil l, 4 74

U.S. at 59

. O n a p p e al

, W at so n ne ve r di rect ly co nt en ds he wou ld no t ha ve pl ead ed

gu il ty an d wou ld ha ve in si st ed on go in g to tri al bu t fo r hi s co un se l's al le ge d

de fic ie nc ie s. In st ead

, he cl ai m s h e c a n sh ow pr ejud ic e be cau se hi s se ct io n 22 55

m ot io n ch al le ng es "t he as pe ct s of hi s co nv ic ti on whi ch le d to hi s 20 y ear m an da to ry

m in im um se nt en ce – th e al le ga ti on s th at he was in vo lv ed in a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

m or e th an 50 gra m s o f co cai ne , and th at hi s i nv ol ve m en t i n t he all eg ed di st rib ut io n

of he ro in led to th e d eat h o f Jo se ph Vanh oe ."

cl ai m ag ai ns t hi m se lf" ), Nev . S ta nd in g Co m m . o n Eth ic s an d Pro f

' l R es po ns ib il it y , Fo rm al Op. No. 48 (2 01 1) (s am e), Va. St at e Bar Leg al Eth ic s Op. No. 1 85 7 (2 01 1) (s am e), an d Adv is or y Co m m

. of th e Su p. Ct

. of Mo

. Fo rm al Op. 12 6 (2 00 9) (s am e);

se e al so Bd

. of Co m

m 'rs on Grie va nc es & Dis ci pl in e of th e Su p. Ct

. of Ohi o Op.

20 01 -6 (2 00 1) (co nc lu di ng a la wy er's ad vi ce to en te r a pl ea ag reem en t th at waiv es an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m is an un et hi cal at te m pt to li m i t l i a bi li ty fo r pe rs on al

m al pr act ic e); Vt. Bar Ass 'n Co m m

. on Pro f'l Res po ns ib il it y , Adv is or y Eth ic s Op. 95

- 04 (19 95 ) (s am e).

St ric kl an d v. W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 7- 94 (1 98 4) (s et ti ng fo rth th e two

3

pa rt s ta nd ard for ev al ua ti ng cla im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l).

-8

-Wa ts on 's co nt en ti on th at he face d a m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of 24 0

m on th s be cau se th e c o n s p i r a cy in vo lv ed fif ty gr am s or m or e of co cai ne ba se is

in co rrec t. As we st at ed ab ov e, W at so n face d a m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of 24 0

m on th s be cau se th e co ns pi racy in vo lv ed a de at h res ul ti ng fro m th e di st rib ut io n of

he ro in

. Thu s, W at so n's ad m is si on th at th e co ns pi racy in vo lv ed fif ty gram s o r m or e

of co cai ne ha d no be ari ng on th e m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce he face d. As a res ul t,

he can no t es ta bl is h an y pr ejud ic e du e to an y ad vi ce he m ay ha ve rece i v e d f ro m hi s

co un se l i n t ha t re ga rd

.

W it h res pe ct to W at s o n ' s s e co nd co nt en ti on —t ha t hi s co un se l fai le d to

in ve st ig at e W at so n's involve m en t in V an hoe's de at h— th e reco rd es ta bl is he s "Wats on

ad m it te d he de li ve red he ro in to Van ho e on th e da y of Van ho e's de at h[ .] " PSR at ¶ 24

. The au to ps y rep or t in di cat ed Van ho e di ed f r o m he ro in po is on in g. In ad di ti on , o ne

of W at so n's co de fen da nt s, Reg in al d Pen ro , was sh own th e h e r oi n se iz ed fro m

Van ho e's res id en ce an d "s ta te d it ap pe ared to be th e sa m e su bs ta nc e he an d W at so n

de li ve red to Van ho e on th e da y of Van ho e's de at h." Id

. at ¶ 21

. W a t so n fai ls to

ad dr es s th e st ren gt h of th is ev id en ce or oth erwi se ex pl ai n ho w hi s tri al co un se l was

in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to fu rth er i n v es ti ga te whe th er W at so n's co nd uc t res ul te d in

Van ho e's de at h. W e th e r efo re co nc lu de th at W at so n can no t es ta bl is h he was

pr ejud ic ed by hi s cou ns el 's all eg ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce, an d th us th e di st ric t co ur t

di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e rel ie f W at so n req ue st ed wit ho ut ho ld in g

an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

.

III

W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-