Opinion ID: 187162
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Request Downward Departure

Text: Amicus claims that Brodie's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he did not request a downward departure based on Brodie's immigration status pursuant to United States v. Smith, 27 F.3d 649 (D.C.Cir.1994). To demonstrate that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction ... the defendant must [first] show that counsel's performance was deficient. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Id. While we often remand an ineffectiveness claim for an evidentiary hearing, see United States v. Geraldo, 271 F.3d 1112, 1116 (D.C.Cir.2001), we dispose of such a claim when the trial record conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief; and when the trial record conclusively shows the contrary. Id. In Smith, we allowed [a] downward departure because of a defendant's status as a deportable alien, recognizing that because such aliens were ineligible for spending the last 10% of their sentences in community-based confinement and could not be assigned to minimum security prisons... a defendant's deportable alien status would `substantial[ly] ... affect the severity of his confinement.' United States v. Graham, 83 F.3d 1466, 1481 (D.C.Cir.1996) (quoting Smith, 27 F.3d at 655). While recognizing that the district court was not required to grant a Smith departure, Amicus argues that there is no conceivable tactical reason for a defendant not to request one and that there is at least a `reasonable probability' that the district court would have granted a Smith departure. Amicus Br. 42, 44. Assuming arguendo that trial counsel was deficient in failing to request a Smith departure, [8] Amicus cannot demonstrate that the deficiency prejudiced Brodie because the district court made clear that it would not have departed downward. See Sentencing Tr. 37, Aug. 8, 2005 (I will apply the Guideline range, although this is a case that I would be tempted to exceed the guideline range, but I did not give you notice.) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we conclude that Brodie is not entitled to relief based on his ineffectiveness claim. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (To demonstrate that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction ... the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.).