Opinion ID: 167733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misinformation about Sentencing Range

Text: 11 Next, Mr. Taylor complains that his attorney told him that he was facing a sentence of imprisonment of 57 to 78 months, when the sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines turned out to be 151 to 188 months. Mr. Taylor says that he wanted to go to trial . . . [b]ut his counsel advised him he was facing a much lesser amount of time th[a]n he actually received. Id. at 6-7. 12 In the guilty plea context, to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's error, the defendant would have insisted upon going to trial. United States v. Silva, 430 F.3d 1096, 1099 (10th Cir.2005). Here, even if we assume that counsel's performance was deficient in estimating the sentencing range, Mr. Taylor has not shown that he was prejudiced by the failure. The district court states in its order denying habeas relief: 13 The plea was made pursuant to an agreement in which defendant acknowledged that he faced a statutory maximum sentence of imprisonment for up to twenty years. The agreement also provided that the United States has advised this defendant that the matter of sentence is entirely within the purview of the sentencing court, and that the United States made no promises to this defendant or his attorney, regarding what sentence might be imposed. . . . [T]he defendant also signed and swore to a petition to enter a plea of guilty which stated that the maximum sentence was twenty years imprisonment and contained defendant's acknowledgment that I know the sentence I will receive is solely a matter within the control of the Judge. A transcript of the plea was not prepared but the court is confident that he followed his usual procedure of explaining the maximum penalty to the defendant, ensuring that defendant understood the maximum penalty and that no promises had been made to him regarding a specific sentence. Defendant does not contend otherwise. 14 R. Vol. I Doc. 60 at 1-2. Because Mr. Taylor has not pointed to anything in the record to the contrary, we will accept the district court's description of the plea agreement. See United States v. LaHue, 261 F.3d 993, 1015 (10th Cir.2001) (defendant did not cite to documents in voluminous record to support claim so we defer to the district court's rulings (internal quotation marks omitted)). In virtually the same circumstances in another case, we held that the defendant's admissions alone belie [his] claim that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to accurately predict the impact of his criminal history. Silva, 430 F.3d at 1100. The district court's denial of relief on this claim would not be debatable among reasonable jurists. 15