Opinion ID: 493809
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Raise Defenses and Failure to Challenge Presentence Investigation Report

Text: 14 Pack next argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because of his attorneys' failure to assert diminished capacity defenses as well as their failure to challenge errors in his presentence investigation report. 15 In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), the Supreme Court enunciated a two-pronged analysis for determining when a convicted defendant's representation is so defective that it requires reversal of the defendant's conviction. The two-pronged analysis requires a defendant to show both that his counsel's performance was deficient and his counsel's deficiencies prejudiced his defense in a manner which deprived him of a fair trial. Meeks v. Berger, 749 F.2d 322, 327 (6th Cir.1984). This analysis is adjusted, however, when dealing with a situation where the defendant enters a guilty plea rather than when the defendant is found guilty after a trial. Thomas v. Foltz, 818 F.2d 476, 480 (6th Cir.1987). In the context of guilty pleas, the performance aspect of the Strickland test remains the same, but the prejudice aspect changes. Id. [I]n order to satisfy the 'prejudice' requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 370 (1985). 16 In the present case, we detect no deficiencies in counsel's performance. Defense counsel's decision to not assert diminished capacity defenses on Pack's behalf appears to have been a matter of sound trial strategy rather than one of error. Defense counsel Kirkland testified at the hearing that he considered but rejected the possibility of raising diminished capacity defenses such as intoxication and insanity. He believed that such defenses were not sustainable and advised Pack to plead guilty so as not to inflame the sentencing judge and risk a lengthier sentence. Additionally, defense counsel McBrayer testified that he considered raising intoxication as a defense because he was aware Pack was intoxicated at the time he held a handgun to a deputy sheriff's head. He stated that he abandoned such defense, however, after he interviewed numerous eyewitnesses, Pack, and Pack's family and found the evidence lacking. Counsel's decision not to develop the defense of intoxication was therefore apparently a matter of sound trial strategy. As such, this court, pursuant to Strickland, must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. [S]trategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.... Id. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that such decision was unreasonable. 17 Pack has, moreover, failed to demonstrate that his counsel acted deficiently within the meaning of Strickland, by failing to challenge errors in the presentence investigation report. Pack first asserts that the report enumerated two armed robbery arrests. However, since Pack testified that he was indeed arrested on the specified dates for armed robbery it appears that the report was not in error, and, accordingly, counsel was not deficient in failing to challenge the two arrests. The second alleged error is that the report stated he was reared in a six bedroom home. Since Pack has failed to demonstrate that the sentencing judge relied on this alleged misstatement in his sentencing decision, this alleged error, even if material, cannot constitute grounds for vacating his sentence. See, e.g., Jones v. United States, 783 F.2d 1477, 1480 (9th Cir.1986) (where a petition to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 rests on grounds of materially false sentencing information, sentence will be vacated on appeal only if the challenged information is demonstrably the basis for the sentence). 18 Because the record supports the district court's conclusion that Pack's defense counsel did not act deficiently by failing to assert diminished capacity defenses or by failing to challenge the presentence investigation report, we must affirm the district court's refusal to vacate Pack's sentence based on this argument.