Opinion ID: 675758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismuke's Appeal

Text: 20 On appeal, Dismuke argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing because his attorney failed to seek sentencing reductions for aberrant behavior and for minor participation in the offense. While ineffective assistance of counsel claims are best dealt with before the district court pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 petition, where we can resolve the claim from the record on direct appeal, we will do so. United States v. Young, 20 F.3d 758, 766 (7th Cir.1994). This is such a case. 21 In order to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that his attorney's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Since we can dispose of Dismuke's claim on the prejudice component, we will address this first. United States v. Malave, 22 F.3d 145, 147 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2069) (a court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant). To demonstrate prejudice, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result ... would have been different. Id. See also Durrive v. United States, 4 F.3d 548, 551 (7th Cir.1993) (a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for trial counsel's errors the defendant's non-capital sentence would have been significantly less harsh). Thus, in considering Dismuke's ineffective assistance claim, we consider whether he had a reasonable probability of receiving sentencing reductions for aberrant behavior and for minor participation in the offense. 22 This court has recognized that a defendant may be entitled to a downward departure in sentencing if the defendant's offense was a single act of aberrant behavior. United States v. Gulley, 992 F.2d 108, 111 (7th Cir.1993). To be considered aberrant within the meaning of the Guidelines, it must be more than merely something 'out of character' or the defendant's first offense. United States v. Carey, 895 F.2d 318, 325 (7th Cir.1990). Aberrant behavior generally involves a single, unplanned, spontaneous act. United States v. Andruska, 964 F.2d 640, 646 (7th Cir.1992). There must be some element of abnormal or exceptional behavior. Carey, 895 F.2d at 325. 23 Dismuke's behavior was none of the above. Rather, Dismuke planned to fly to Houston to obtain cocaine and to send it to Rockford. In route to catch his plane, Dismuke had car troubles. He nevertheless continued with his plan by arranging alternative transportation and obtaining a new flight. He then proceeded to Houston, obtained drugs, packaged the drugs, and shipped them via Federal Express. These actions were far from the single, unplanned, spontaneous acts usually associated with aberrant behavior. Thus, even had Dismuke's attorney sought a reduction for aberrant behavior, there is no possibility, much less a reasonable one, that the court would have granted it. This is illustrated by the district court's comment in sentencing Dismuke: the court stated that his crime was not the result of some casual encounter, but involved some significant plans to arrange cocaine to be brought to Rockford from Texas. Because Dismuke has failed to demonstrate that he suffered prejudice by the failure of his attorney to seek a reduction for aberrant behavior, this portion of his ineffective assistance claim fails. 24 Dismuke's assertion that his attorney was ineffective for failing to seek a reduction for his minor participation based on Section 3B1.2 of the Guidelines must also fail. Section 3B1.2 authorizes a reduction of four levels for minimal participation and of two levels for minor participation in the underlying offense. A reduction for a minor participant rests on whether the defendant was substantially less culpable than the conspiracy's other participants. United States v. DePriest, 6 F.3d 1201, 1214 (7th Cir.1993). Here, in sentencing Dismuke, the district court noted that Dismuke played a significant part in bringing this cocaine to Rockford, and there's no evidence that you were just a mule.... In addition, you are older and more responsible than the other participant.... These findings by the district court, while not in response to a request for a minor participation reduction, nevertheless negate any attempt by Dismuke to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that he would have received such a reduction had his attorney sought one. Dismuke has again failed to demonstrate that he suffered prejudice by the failure of his attorney to seek a minor participation reduction. This portion of his ineffective assistance claim also fails.