Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110630_0001117.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 06:28:19
Document Index: 250425103

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

Wilson was represented at all times by Holmes. On January 10, 2008, Wilson pled guilty without a plea agreement to the distribution charges. On May 5, 2008, pursuant to the Government's request, the Court dismissed the conspiracy count without prejudice. On April 11,2008, the Court sentenced Wilson to serve 200 months in prison.
The Court must grant a § 2255 motion when a defendant's "sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, "[h]abeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for extraordinary situations." Prewitt v. United States, 83 F.3d 812, 816 (7th Cir. 1996). Relief under § 2255 is available only if an error is "constitutional, jurisdictional, or is a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice." Barnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d 704, 705 (7th Cir. 1997) (quotations omitted). Wilson claims the dismissal of her appeal was a product of Holmes' constitutionally ineffective assistance.
The Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." U.S. Const. amend. VI. This right to assistance of counsel encompasses the right to effective assistance of counsel. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, n. 14 (1970); Watson v. Anglin, 560 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2009). A party claiming ineffective assistance of counsel bears the burden of showing(1) that his trial counsel's performance fell below objective standards for reasonably effective representation and (2) that this deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-94 (1984); Fountain v. United States, 211 F.3d 429, 434 (7th Cir. 2000).
As for the first element of the Strickland test, the Court must consider whether in light of all of the circumstances counsel's performance was outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Wyatt v. United States, 574 F.3d 455, 458 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2431 (2010). The Court's review of counsel's performance must be "highly deferential[,] . . . indulg[ing] a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689; accord Wyatt, 574 F.3d at 458. To satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test, the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different, such that the proceedings were fundamentally unfair or unreliable. United States v. Jones, 635 F.3d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 2011); Fountain, 211 F.3d at 434; Adams v. Bertrand, 453 F.3d 428, 435 (7th Cir. 2006).
This case was full of misunderstandings between Wilson and Holmes. For example, Holmes' May 8, 2008, letter characterizes the consequence of pursuing an appeal as "decreasing" Wilson's chances for a Rule 35(b) sentence reduction. In fact, it virtually extinguished them, as Holmes had told Wilson orally. Nevertheless, the ambiguous letter left Wilson with the wrong impression about the consequences of her actions. Similarly, Wilson and Holmes did not have a mutual understanding about the circumstances that would trigger Holmes to file the motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Holmes thought it was continuance of the proffer; Wilson thought it was acceptance of the proffer. Wilson also came to rely on Holmes to let her know if the motion was filed so she could decide whether to ask to withdraw it, whereas Holmes thought Wilson's decision was final and that she would contact him if she changed her mind. The misunderstandings were compounded by an overall lack of communication that kept Wilson from being informed about critical events when action could have been taken to avoid or correct further misunderstandings. While the Court finds that these misunderstandings and lack of communication do not individually amount to subpar attorney performance, in combination, they do. As a consequence of this delinquency, Wilson agreed to sign the motion to dismiss her appeal. Had Holmes' communication been better, Wilson would have been able to pursue her appeal.
For these reasons, the Court finds that Wilson has established both elements of the Strickland test and is entitled now to proceed as if on direct appeal, with the assistance of counsel. See Castellanos v. United States, 26 F.3d 717, 720 (7th Cir. 1994) (considering where defendant is deprived of appeal because of counsel's delinquent failure to file notice of appeal). In light of this finding, the Court need not address the other issues raised in Wilson's § 2255 motion.
* GRANTS Wilson's § 2255 motion (Doc. 1);
* VACATES the judgment in Wilson's criminal case (Case No. 07-cr-40020, Doc. 141);
* DIRECTS the Courtroom Deputy to prepare and file an amended judgment in Wilson's criminal case (Case No. 07-cr-40020);
* DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file a notice of appeal in Wilson's criminal case (Case No. 07-cr-40020) within 14 days of the amended judgment, and to include the judgment in this § 2255 case as part of the short record on appeal in Wilson's criminal case (Case No. 07-cr-40020); and
* ORDERS that Wilson's current counsel continue to represent Wilson through the filing of the appeal in her criminal case. Counsel may request withdrawal from the Court of Appeals, if appropriate.