The government then might not want to run the risk of a plea withdrawal in the interim. The government made this argu- ment to the court. This was by no stretch ineffective lawyering. Nor was Andre denied effective assistance when his attor- ney balked at filing a response to the government's opposition to Andre's pro se withdrawal request. We are unable to identify any.
Appellate counsel suggests none.
A lawyer is not ineffective when he fails to file a frivolous pleading. The court had no jurisdiction to accept his plea, he contends, because the charge was neither returned by a grand jury nor prosecuted by information upon proper waiver. This argu- ment goes nowhere. As long as the crime and the elements of the offense that sustain the conviction are fully and clearly set out in the indictment, the right to a grand jury is not normally violated by the fact that the indictment alleges more crimes or other means of committing the same crime. In Miller, the government chose to prove only parts of an indictment at trial.