Opinion ID: 1457971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim of Ineffective Assistance by Attorney O'Reilly

Text: Vadas alleges that his first counsel, Attorney O'Reilly, was constitutionally deficient in failing to advise him that he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of only five years' imprisonment and not to the ten-year mandatory minimum set forth in the government's first plea offer. Petitioner claims that O'Reilly incorrectly informed him concerning that plea offer which was made around June 1999. Vadas asserts that, because the government had not yet filed the § 851 Second-Offender Information in support of the enhanced minimum term of ten years' imprisonment, he was not yet facing a ten-year minimum sentence as his lawyer allowed him to believe. According to Vadas, O'Reilly communicated the following plea offer: On June 29, 1999, I spoke by telephone with the [Assistant United States Attorney] Robert Appleton who forwarded the following plea offer: (1) Plead Guilty to Court [sic] One of the Superseding Indictment, conspiracy to distribute cocaine.... (2) Plead guilty to County Twenty of the Superseding Indictment [forfeiture of home.] In return for the plea of guilty to the above charge, the Government will agree to dismiss the Count Two [firearm possession in violation of § 922(g)(1)] and dismiss the Second Conspiracy Indictment involving conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The Government will also agree to stipulate that the amount of cocaine attributable to you is between 500 grams and five kilograms in order to limit your exposure to a ten year minimum mandatory prison sentence. (note: the government reserves the right to ask for a sentence to be imposed according to the sentencing guidelines.) The government will also agree to drop all of the other charges in the superseding indictment. But for O'Reilly's misinformation, Vadas claims he would have pled guilty and faced only a fiveyear sentence: As of June 30, 1999, the prosecution had not filed a prior felony information under 21 U.S.C. 851. Accordingly, the mandatory minimum term for a conspiracy involving 500 grams of cocaine was 5 years' imprisonment and not ten years' imprisonment. The exaggeration of the maximum [sic] sentence caused Vadas to reject the early plea, and was the foundation for ineffectiveness claim against Mr. O'Reilly. (emphasis added). Vadas has not shown that O'Reilly's representation was constitutionally deficient. The government's initial plea offer included a stipulation that the amount of cocaine attributable to Vadas would be assessed at between 500 grams and 5 kilograms. This  should a § 851 notice be timely filed  would expose Vadas to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. Hence, the government's plea offer! And O'Reilly was not deficient in conveying it to him precisely as made. Nor did O'Reilly's failure to object to that plea offer constitute representation below an objective standard of reasonableness. Section 851 does not require that notice be filed at the time a plea offer is made. It bars sentence enhancement for a drug offense under § 841(b) only if no notice is filed before trial, or before entry of a plea of guilty. The government complied with this requirement by filing the Second-Offender Information one year prior to the entry of Vadas's guilty plea. Nothing in the record suggests the government ever extended a plea offer that would have included only a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. To the contrary, by Vadas's own statement, Assistant United States Attorney Appleton had informed Vadas's counsel both by letter and through court filings  on November 1, 1999, March 2, 2000, April 19, 2000, March 15, 2001, and March 23, 2001  well before the plea offer was made, of his intention to seek sentence enhancement for Vadas's prior conviction. Under the circumstances, Vadas has failed to show that O'Reilly violated either of the Strickland standards. O'Reilly's failure to point out that the government's plea offer had not yet complied with the requirements of § 851, but intended to do so in a timely manner, was neither below an objective standard of reasonableness, nor prejudicial to Vadas.