Opinion ID: 766770
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Investigate Before Advising Robinson to Plead Guilty

Text: 11 Robinson claims his attorneys were ineffective because they failed to investigate the charges or interview witnesses before advising him to plead guilty. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Robinson was required to prove that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that he was prejudiced. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). In the context of Robinson's guilty pleas, he must show 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, 59 (1985). Whether Robinson was prejudiced on his failure to investigate claim depends on whether information that might have been discovered with further inquiry would have led counsel to change his recommendation as to the plea. Id. at 59. This determination depends on the likelihood that the evidence would have changed the outcome at trial. Id. 12 Robinson asserts that if his trial counsel had interviewed Brian Whipple they would have learned that a grand jury witness lied about Robinson's sons stealing two kilograms of cocaine from Robinson's house and then traveling to Florida with Whipple to sell the drugs. Robinson also contends that if his trial counsel had conducted an adequate investigation they would have uncovered that a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agent lied to the grand jury about Robinson's name appearing in a drug ledger. William Gavras, one of Robinson's trial attorneys, admitted at the evidentiary hearing held on Robinson's sec. 2255 motion that neither he nor Robinson's other lawyer, William Stiehl, knew about Whipple's version of the events, or the allegedly false drug ledger testimony. Gavras testified that they advised Robinson to plead guilty because of the overwhelming evidence against him. The lawyer further testified that knowing about either the Whipple evidence or the drug ledger evidence would have affected his assessment of the government's case. In our opinion, Gavras' testimony is a far cry from an admission that he would have advised Rob inson to go to trial had he known about the Whipple or drug ledger evidence. 13 Furthermore, the mere fact that Whipple's account differs from that of the grand jury witness is far from conclusive proof that the witness lied. Moreover, Whipple had a motive to lie because the grand jury witness portrayed him as being involved in illegal drug sales. With respect to the drug ledger, Robinson contends that the DEA agent lied because the name Ervin Robinson does not appear in the ledger. According to the DEA agent, Robinson's drug transaction was recorded in the ledger under his street name Bird, and though Robinson denied having ever been known as Bird, his assertion is hardly conclusive proof that the DEA agent testified falsely. In any event, we conclude that this is not the type of evidence that would have caused Robinson to believe that he could win at trial, especially considering that the government's case included testimony from Robinson's co-conspirators, and tape- recorded conversations of Robinson discussing his drug dealings. See Arango- Alvarez v. United States, 134 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir. 1998). Significantly, at the evidentiary hearing on his sec. 2255 motion, Robinson did not testify that he would have insisted on going to trial if his counsel had conducted a thorough investigation. Consequently, Robinson has not proven ineffective assistance of counsel because he has not presented any evidence that he was prejudiced by his counsel's alleged failure to investigate. 14