# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 36 07

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Glen Ray All en

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Mov an t - Ap

pe ll an t

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Ho t Sp rin gs

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 17

Fil ed : Ap ril 14 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

. 1

__

__ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Glen Ray All en pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi r i n g t o di st rib ut e m or e th an 1,0 00

ki lo gr am s of m ari

juan a an d po ss es si ng wit h in te nt to d i s t rib ut e m or e th an 10 0

ki lo gr am s of m ari

juan a, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 6. The di st ric t

The Hon or ab le Lav en sk i R. S mi t h be cam e Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d St at es 1

Co ur t o f App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h C irc ui t o n M arch 11 , 20 17

.co ur t se nt en ced All en to 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, whi ch was affi rm ed on ap pe al

. All en pe ti ti on ed fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, cl ai m in g

th at he was de ni ed hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. The

di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e pe ti ti on wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. W e gr an te d a

2

cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y an d n ow af

fir m

.

I. BACK GROUND

The fact s un de rlyin g All en ’s co nv ic ti on are se t fo rth in ou r pr io r op in io n,

Uni te d St at es v. All en , 70 5 F.3d 36 7, 36 8- 69 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). W e rep eat th os e fact s

he re as rel ev an t fo r th e in st an t ap pe al

.

Fo ll owi ng th e in it ia l fil in g of th e cri m in al co m pl ai nt in Apr il 20 10

, All en an d

a co -d efen da nt ul t i matel y were ch arg ed by s up ers ed in g in di ct m en t wit h co ns pi rin g

to di st rib ut e m or e th an 1,0 00 ki lo gr am s of m ari juan a (co un t on e) an d po ss es si ng wit h

in te nt to di st rib ut e m or e t h a n 10 0 ki lo gr am s of m ari juan a (co un t two ). He face d a

m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce of te n y ears on co un t on e an d fiv e y ears on co un t two

. Se e 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A) an d (B). Beg in ni ng in May 20 10

, at to rn ey Ty la r Tap p

rep res en te d Alle n, Alle n pl ead ed no t gu il ty to bo th co un ts

, an d Tap p fi le d a m ot io n

to su pp res s ev id en ce se iz ed fro m All en ’s car. On Ju ly 29

, 20 10

, th e Gov ern m en t

of fere d a pl ea de al in whi ch All en wou ld pl ead gu il ty to co un t two

, face a m an da to ry

m in im um o f f i ve y ears , an d st ip ul at e to a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 29 —yield in g an

ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge of 97 to 12 1 mo n t h s ’ im pr is on m en t. The pl ea of

fer was

co nt in ge nt on All en wit hd rawi ng th e su pp res si on m ot io n.

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt T. Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f or th e 2

W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, no w ret ire d, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Barr y A. Bryant

, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Tap p th or ou gh ly d is cu ss ed th e pl ea of fer wit h All en , bu t Al le n was un ha pp y

wit h th e te rm s an d di d no t want Tap p neg ot ia ti ng wit h th e Gov ern m en t any fu rth er.

All en to ld Tap p th at hi s sen te nc e un de r th e pl ea of fer “ was to o m

uc h ti m e fo r m e to

do acco rd in g to m

y in vo lv em en t.” Bas ed on th es e in st ru ct io ns , Tap p se nt a le tt er to

All en in Sep te m

be r 20 10 co nf

irming th at th e su pp res si on he ari ng was se t fo r Octo be r

20 10

. Tap p wro te , “ It i s m y be li ef an d u nd ers ta nd in g t ha t I a m go in g fo rward wit h

th is he ari ng an d no t to d o a n y o t h e r ne go ti at io ns un le ss to ld ot he rwis e by y ou

. If

y ou r op in io n ch an ge s th en pl eas e do no t he si ta te to le t m e kn ow as so on as po ss ib le .”

In it ia ll y , Tapp ha d adv is ed All en to reject th e pl ea offe r an d m ov e fo rward wit h t he

m ot io n to su pp res s. Tap p c h a n ge d hi s po si ti on , h owe ve r, whe n he le arn ed th at th e

Gov ern m en t co ul d pr ov e All en was sp eed in g pr io r to th e se arch

. Aro un d t h is ti m e

an d w i t h o u t Ta pp ’s kn owl ed ge , All en at te m pt ed to fil e an in de pe nd en t m ot io n to

su pp res s wit h th e di st ric t co ur t. All en th en in fo rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t th at he wis he d

to ret a i n di ffer en t co un se l. The di st ric t co ur t al lo wed Tap p to wit hd raw an d

po st po ne d th e su pp res si on he ari ng

. Afte rward s, All en fil ed an ot he r pr o se m ot io n

as se rti ng t h e r e w a s in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e ch arg es

. On Decem be r 9,

20 10 , All en ret ai ne d C la y Jan sk e to rep res en t h im

.

All en in fo rm ed Ja ns ke th at he was no t in te res te d in a pl ea de al an d in st ru ct ed

h i m n o t to di sc us s th e ex is ti ng pl ea of fer. In fact

, All en hi red Ja ns ke sp eci f i c a l l y

be cau se he “ wou ld no t be sc ared ” to try th e cas e be fo re a jury. On th is ba si s, Ja ns ke 3

pr oc eed ed wit h t he m ot io n t o su pp res s, whi ch was d en ie d. Fo ll owi ng th e d en ia l o f

th e m ot io n to su pp re s s a n d a few da y s pr io r to tri al

, All en ’s co -d efen da nt pl ead ed

gu il ty an d ag reed to te st if y a g a i ns t All en

. Aro un d th is ti m e, th e Gov ern m en t al so

in di cat ed th at if All en pr oc eed ed to tri al

, it in te nd ed to se ek an en h a nc ed se nt en ce

ba se d on All en ’s p rio r fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti on s. Se e 21 U

. S

. C . § 85 1. If co nv ic te d

on co un t on e , A l le n wou ld face a m an da to ry se nt en ce of li fe im pr is on m en t; if

In a le tt er se nt to th e di st ric t co ur t aft er he pl ead ed gu il ty an d was se nt en ced

, 3

All en wrot e, “ I di d m en ti on [to Jan sk e] tha t I d id n’t wan t t o d is cu ss a pl ea.”

-3

-co nv ic te d on co un t two

, All en wou ld face a m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of 10 y ears

an d a m ax im

um sen te nc e o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t.

At th is po in t, Ja ns ke br oa ch ed th e su bjec t of a p l ea of fer. Bec au se All en

pr oc eed ed wit h th e su pp res si on he ari ng , th e Gov ern m en t of fere d a pl ea de al in whi ch

All en wou ld co nd it io na ll y pl ead gu i l t y t o b ot h co un ts wit ho ut th e § 85 1

en ha nc em en ts

, res erv in g th e rig ht to ap pe al th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to s u p p r e ss

. All en acce pt ed th e pl ea of fer, co nd it io na ll y pl ead ed gu il ty to bo th co un ts

, an d face d

a m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce of te n y ears on co un t on e an d fiv e y ears on co un t

two

. The di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d an ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge of 12 1 to

15 1 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t an d se nt en ced All en to co nc ur ren t 12 0- m on th te rm s, th e

m an da to ry m in im

um fo r co un t on e. On ap pe al

, we affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al

of th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s. Id

. at 37 0.

A f t e r hi s ap pe al , Al le n fil ed th is § 22 55 pe ti ti on , a lo ng wit h an affi da vi t an d

ex hi bi t s , a l le gi ng th at he was de ni ed hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to effe ct iv e

as si s t a n c e of co un se l. The Gov ern m en t res po nd ed wit h a br ie f an d affi da vi ts fro m Tap p an d Ja ns ke

. Am on g ot he r cl ai m s, All en arg ue d th at Ja ns ke ga ve e r r o ne ou s

ad vi ce th at All en wou ld on ly ge t “ a co up le of m or e y ears ” if he pr oc eed ed to tri al

in st ead of pl ead in g gu il ty. Ja ns ke at te st ed th at th is ad vi ce ha d b e en ba se d on

in accu rat e in fo rm at io n th at All en ha d pr ov id ed ab ou t hi s cri m in al hi st or y

. All en

a r g u e d t ha t ha d Ja ns ke pr op erl y ad vi se d hi m ab ou t th e po te nt ia l of a m an da to r y

se nt en ce of li fe im

pr is on m en t if co nv ic te d on co un t on e, he wou ld ha ve acce pt ed th e

Gov ern m en t’s in it ia l of

fer an d pl ead ed gu il ty be fo re th e su pp res si on he ari ng

. In st ead

, he pl ead ed gu il ty sh or tl y be fo re tr ia l an d face d a te n- y ear m an da to ry

m in im um in st ead of a fiv e-year on e.

The di st ric t co ur t, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d re co m m en da ti on of th e m ag is tra te
jud ge , de ni ed All en ’s pe ti ti on wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Rev ie win g th e reco rd

, it fo un d th at All en sp eci fic al ly to ld Ja ns ke th at he was no t in te res te d in pl ea

-4

-ne go ti at io ns an d to pr oc eed wit h th e su pp res si on he ari ng

. Eve n aft er th e co ur t de ni ed

th e m ot io n to su pp res s, A l l e n co nt in ue d to fo rb id co un se l fro m ne go ti at in g a pl ea

de al

. It co nc lu de d th at “ [o ]nly whe n a co -d efen da nt pl ed gu il ty an d of fere d to te st ify

ag ai ns t hi m an d th e Gov ern m en t in di cat ed i t wou ld se ek to en ha nc e hi s se nt en ce if

th e cas e wen t t o t ria l, d id All en co ns id er en te rin g a pl ea ag reem en t.” W e g ran te d a

cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on th e qu es ti on of whe th er Ja ns ke ’s fai lu re to ad vi se All en

of a po ss ib le m an da to ry li fe se nt en ce co ns ti tu te d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of c ou ns el

. All en no w app eal s.

II . DISCUSSI ON

“ It ha s lo ng be en reco gn iz ed th at th e [Si xt h Am en dm en t] rig ht to co un se l is th e rig ht to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l.” McMa nn v. Rich ar ds on , 39 7 U.S. 75 9, 77 1

n.1 4 (1 97 0) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Thi s rig ht ex te nd s to t h e p l e a

- ba rg ai ni ng pr oc es s

su ch th at “ [i]f a pl ea barg ai n has be en of fere d, a de fen da nt ha s th e rig ht to effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l in co ns id eri ng whe th er to acce pt it .” La fl er v. Co op er , 56 6 U.S.

15 6, 16 8 (2 01 2) . In o rd er t o e st ab li sh in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, Allen m us t

de m on st rat e th at hi s cou ns el ’s pe rfo rm an ce was bo th de fic ie nt an d pre jud ic ia l. Se e

St ri ckl an d v . W

as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 69 3 (1 98 4)

.

“ In de te rm in in g wh et he r co un se l’s co nd uc t was [de fic ie nt ], th ere i s a ‘str on g

pr es um pt io n th at co un se l’s co nd uc t fal ls wit hi n th e wid e ran ge of reas on ab le

pr of es si on al as si st an ce.’” Ng uy en v. Uni te d St at es , 11 4 F.3 d 69 9, 70 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )
(q uo ti ng St ri ckl an d

, 46 6 U.S. at 68 9)

. Add it io na ll y , “ [s ]trat eg ic ch oi ces m ad e aft er

th or ou gh in ve st ig at io n of la w an d fact s rel ev an t to pl au si bl e op ti on s are vi rtu al ly

un ch al le ng eab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Rice

, 44 9 F.3 d 88 7, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng

St ri ckl an d

, 46 6 U.S. at 6 9 0 )

. To de m on st rat e th at co un se l’s de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce

pr ejud ic ed hi s de fen se , All en m us t sh ow th at th ere is a “ reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at

, bu t fo r [h is ] co un se l’s un pr of es si on al erro rs , th e res ul t of [h is ] pr oc eed in gs wou ld

ha ve be en di ffer en t.” St ri ckl an d

, 46 6 U.S. at 69 4; se e al so Sa nd er s v. Uni te d St at es ,

-5

-34 1 F.3 d 72 0, 72 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ [T]he de fe n d a n t m us t sh ow th at

, bu t fo r hi s

co un se l’s ad vi ce, h e w ou ld ha ve acce pt ed th e pl ea.” (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ). “ A

reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y is a pr ob a b i li ty su ffi ci en t to un de rm in e co nf id en ce in th e

ou tc om e,” whi ch “ req ui res a su bs ta nt ia l, no t jus t co nc ei va bl e, lik el iho od of a dif fe rent

res ul t.” Cu ll en v. Pin ho ls te r , 56 3 U.S. 17 0, 18 9 (2 01 1) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. In th e pl ea-b arg ai ni ng co nt ex t, th is m ean s a cl ai m an t m us t de m on st rat e a su bs ta nt ia l

li ke li ho od th at (1) he wou ld ha ve acce pt ed th e o ffer to pl ead pu rs ua nt to th e ear li er

pr op os ed te rm s, (2 ) ne it he r th e pr os ecu ti on no r th e tri al co ur t wou ld ha ve pr ev en te d

th e o f f er fro m be in g acce pt ed

, an d (3 ) th e pl ea te rm s wou ld ha ve be en le ss se ve re

th an un de r th e ju d g ment an d se nt en ce th at were act ua ll y im po se d. Se e La

fl er , 56 6

U.S. at 1 64 ; see al

so Mis so ur i v. Fr

ye , 56 6 U.S. 1 33 , 14 8 (2 01 2)

.

W e rev ie w § 2 25 5 p os t-c on vi ct io n in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s de no vo an d

th e u n d erl y in g fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Reg en os , 40 5 F.3 d

69 1, 69 2- 93 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t ’s de ci si on to de ny an

ev id en ti ary he ari ng fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Id

. at 69 3. Ass um in g wit ho ut de ci di ng

th at All en ha s de m on st rat ed th at hi s co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt

, se e Boy si ewi ck v. Sc hr ir o , 17 9 F.3 d 61 6, 62 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ), All en ha s fai le d to sh ow a

su bs ta nt ia l li ke li ho od th at he wou ld ha ve acce pt ed th e of fer to pl ead gu il ty pu rs ua nt

to th e m or e fav or ab le te rm s of fere d pr io r to th e su pp res si on he ari ng

. As a r e su lt

, All en ha s n ot pro ve n t ha t J an sk e’s ad vi ce p reju di ced hi s d efen se

.

All en co nt en ds th at he was pr ejud ic ed by Ja ns ke ’s al le ge dl y erro ne ou s ad vi ce

th at All en wou ld on ly ge t “ a co up le of m or e y ears ” if he pr oc eed ed to tri al in st ead of
pl ead in g gu il ty. Al l e n p o i n t s to th e fact th at on ce he le arn ed of th e po ss ib il it y of a

li fe se nt en ce, he qu ic kl y pl ead ed gu il ty. Th i s , he as se rts

, is su ffi ci en t to sh ow a

“ su bs ta nt ia l, no t jus t co nc ei va bl e, li ke li ho od ” th at he wou ld ha ve acce pt ed th e in it ia l
pl ea of fer ha d Ja ns ke ad vi se d hi m of th e po ss ib il it y of a li fe s e n t en ce. Se e Cu ll en , 56 3 U.S. a t 18 9 (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. A l l e n ’s c l a im s, ho wev er, ru n co nt rary t o th e

reco rd

, whi ch is cl ear th at All en ’s de ci si on was m ot iv at ed by hi s be li ef th at th e pl ea

-6

-of

fer was no t f

av or ab le en ou gh an d hi s ho pe th at he wou ld su ccee d on th e

su pp res si on m ot io n.

All en co nc ed ed th at he th ou gh t th e in it ia l pl ea of fer “ was to o m

uc h ti m e fo r m e

to do acco rd in g to m

y in vo lv em en t” an d th us to ld Tap p th at he was no t in te res te d in

ne go ti at in g wit h th e Gov ern m en t. W he n Tap p ex pr es se d do ub t ab ou t th e ch an ces of

su cces s on th e m ot io n to su pp res s, All en at te m pt ed to fil e hi s own m ot io n to su pp res s

an d fir ed Tap p. Afte r th at

, All en fil ed an o t he r pr o se m ot io n to di sm is s th e

in di ct m en t, cl ai m in g t h e r e w as in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e ch arg es

. All en

th en hi red Ja ns ke sp eci fic al ly be cau se Ja ns ke “ wou ld no t be sc ared ” to go to tri al an d

to ld Ja ns ke th at h e was no t in te res te d in ne go ti at in g a pl ea. Eve n aft er hi s

su pp res si on m ot io n was d e n ie d in Ja nu ary 20 11

, All en fo rb ad e Ja ns ke fro m

ne go t ia ti ng a pl ea de al

. All en di d no t pl ead gu il ty un ti l Apr il 20 11

, aft er hi s co

de fen da nt ha d ag reed to te st ify ag ai ns t hi m an d th e Go v e rn m en t ha d in di cat ed th at

it wou ld se ek an en ha nc ed se nt en ce if All en pr oc eed ed to tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t

fo un d th at bo th fact or s— th e co -d efen da nt te st im on y an d th e p os si bl e

en ha nc em en t— in flu en ce d All en ’s de ci si on to pl ead gu il ty. In ot he r wor ds

, All en

fai le d to pr ov e th at “ bu t fo r hi s co un se l’s ad vi ce, he wou ld ha ve acce pt ed th e pl ea.”

Se e Sa nd er

s , 34 1 F.3 d at 72 2 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. U n d e r s i m il ar ci rcu m st an ces , we

co nc lu de d a ha be as cl ai m an t fai le d to sh ow pr ejud ic e in pa rt be c a u s e h e was

“ un wil li ng [] to co ns id er pl ead in g gu il ty,” ha d “ al way s ex pr es se d a de si re to pr oc eed

to tri al

, an d no ne of co un se l’s di sc us si on s ab ou t th e po ss ib il it y o f a g u i lt y pl ea

se em ed to swa y hi m .” Id

. at 72 3. Thu s, we co nc lu de th at All en fai le d to pr ov e, by a

su bs ta nt ia l li ke li ho od

, th at he wou ld ha ve acce pt ed th e of fer to pl ead pu rs ua nt to th e

earl ie r pr op os ed ter m s.

Fi na ll y , 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 All en ’s req ue st

fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. “ A § 22 55 m ot io n can be di sm is se d wit ho ut a he ari ng if
(1 ) th e pe ti t i o n e r ’s al le ga ti on s, acce pt ed as tru e, wou ld no t en ti tl e th e pe ti ti on er to

rel ie f, or (2 ) th e al le ga ti on s can no t be acce pt ed as tru e be cau se th ey are co nt rad ic te d

-7

-by th e reco rd

, in he ren tl y in cred ib l e, or co nc lu si on s rat he r th an st at em en ts of fact .”

Reg en os , 40 5 F.3 d at 69 4. Here, All e n ’s c l a i m t h at he was pr ejud ic ed by hi s

co un se l’s pu rp or te d de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce is co nt rad ic te d by t he reco rd

. Th u s , t he

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 All en ’s § 22 55 pe ti ti on wit ho ut

an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

.

II I. CONCLUS IO N

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-8

-