Opinion ID: 2670267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Frye/Lafler Claim

Text: Relying on Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1408 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), Santiago next argues that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to communicate an offer by the government to withdraw the prior felony information filed against him in exchange for a guilty plea. After careful review of the record, we conclude that this argument lacks merit. The District Court did not clearly err in finding that no such offer had been made, and, in any event, there was no prejudice because Santiago’s sentencing exposure was more favorable after trial than it would have been had he accepted the Government’s purported offer.2 2 We also reject Santiago’s request that the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing since Santiago has not proffered anything that credibly suggests an undisclosed offer was made. See Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 3