Opinion ID: 172275
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. McGee's Appellate Ineffectiveness Claim.

Text: As the Supreme Court explained in Strickland, it is not necessary to address both components of the [ineffective assistance of counsel] inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one. 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In particular, a court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel's performance. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed. Id. Because it is easier to dispose of Mr. McGee's appellate ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, we will confine our analysis to the prejudice prong of the Strickland inquiry. As set forth above, in order to establish the requisite prejudice as a result of being deprived of his original plea agreement, Mr. McGee must show that, but for his appellate counsel's unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result of his certiorari appeal to the OCCA and the resulting remand to the trial court would have been different. See Cargle, 317 F.3d at 1202. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Thus, Mr. McGee must show a reasonable probability that the trial court, i.e., Judge Lindley, would have sentenced him to a sentence of less than twenty years (the sentence ultimately imposed after Mr. McGee's trial and direct appeal to the OCCA) if his appellate counsel had been successful in having the original plea agreement specifically enforced and Mr. McGee resentenced on remand in accordance with that agreement. This requires a specific showing that there is a reasonable probability that Judge Lindley would have imposed a sentence of less than twenty years if he had been presented with the opportunity to resentence Mr. McGee on the four drug counts with no prior felony enhancers and thus a sentencing range of two years to life on each count. As set forth above, the prejudice inquiry is complicated by the intervening amendment to Oklahoma's prior felony enhancement statute and by the fact that it is unclear which version of the enhancement statute Judge Lindley was applying when he sentenced Mr. McGee to four thirty-year concurrent sentences in January 2002. Most importantly, it is unclear whether Judge Lindley was applying the pre-July 1, 2001, version of the statute, which would have provided a sentencing range of twenty years to life for Mr. McGee, or the post-July 1, 2001, version of the statute, which would have provided a sentencing range of six years to life. Consequently, we will perform a prejudice analysis under both versions of the statute. We conclude that Mr. McGee has failed to show a reasonable probability that Judge Lindley would have sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of less than twenty years if the plea agreement had been specifically enforced. First, assuming that Judge Lindley was applying the post-July 2001 version of the enhancement statute when he sentenced Mr. McGee to four thirty-year concurrent sentences, we do not believe that Judge Lindley would have imposed shorter sentences if the minimum sentence on each of the four counts was reduced from six years to two years. In fact, Judge Lindley's decision to impose enhanced sentences that were twenty-four years above the six-year minimum belies any such possibility. Further, we reject Mr. McGee's argument that he can show prejudice as a result of being deprived of his plea agreement because: (1) Judge Lindley in effect sentenced him to seven and one half years on each of the four enhanced counts when he imposed four thirty-year concurrent sentences; and (2) Judge Lindley would have reduced each of the sentences by two thirds if he had been presented with the opportunity to resentence Mr. McGee with a two-year minimum sentence instead of a six-year minimum sentence. See Aplt. Second Supp. Br. at 13-14. Simply put, Judge Lindley sentenced Mr. McGee to four indivisible thirty-year sentences, and the fact that he ran the sentences concurrently does not assist Mr. McGee in showing the requisite prejudice under Strickland. Nor is there any indication in the trial court record that Judge Lindley based his sentences on any sort of ratio or correlation between the unenhanced minimum sentence and the enhanced minimum sentence. Second, assuming that Judge Lindley was applying the pre-July 2001 version of the enhancement statute when he sentenced Mr. McGee to four thirty-year concurrent sentences, we do not believe that having the minimum sentence reduced from twenty years to two years would have made any difference in the sentences that Judge Lindley imposed. Although this is a closer question given the larger difference between the unenhanced and enhanced minimum sentences, we nonetheless conclude that a finding of no prejudice is required by our published decision in Shaw v. Johnson, 786 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1986), and is further supported by our unpublished decision in McCormack v. Jones, 248 Fed.Appx. 29 (10th Cir.2007). In Shaw, an Oklahoma state prisoner brought a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that the Oklahoma court of criminal appeals unconstitutionally denied [him] of his right to have a jury resentence him when that court found that the jury had been erroneously instructed as to the minimum number of years [he] could receive [under an earlier version of Oklahoma's prior felony enhancement statute]. Shaw, 786 P.2d at 995; see also id. at 997 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(A) (1981)). In a thorough and extensive discussion that is directly on point for purposes of this appeal, we rejected the prisoner's argument. After noting that Shaw was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment under an enhancement statute that both defense and government counsel believed required a minimum sentence of twenty years, we concluded as follows: It later developed that the trial court, as well as all of counsel, were laboring under a misapprehension as to the minimum sentence which could be imposed if the jury found that Shaw had suffered one prior felony conviction. Instead of being a twenty-year minimum, as the jury was instructed, the actual minimum then permitted by statute was ten years.... Shaw, in this federal habeas proceeding, asserts that this error in the sentencing jury instruction is constitutional error. He argues that under the circumstances, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals should have remanded the case to the trial court for a new resentencing trial where the jury would be properly instructed as to the correct minimum sentence which could be imposed, i.e., ten years and not twenty. .... In [this] case, it is unlikely that the sentencing error had any effect on Shaw's sentence. The jury was instructed that the range of punishment which could be imposed was from twenty years to life. The jury rejected the argument of defense counsel that they give Shaw a twenty-year sentence, and, instead, imposed the maximum sentence allowable, i.e., life. It is pure speculation that the jury would have imposed something less than life imprisonment had it been properly instructed that the minimum possible sentence was ten years, and not twenty.... See Hill v. Estelle, 653 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir.[1981]) ... (error in minimum possible sentence did not [require resentencing] when actual sentence given was large enough to show that error did not prejudice defendant). Shaw, 786 F.2d at 996-98; see also Hill, 653 F.2d at 205 (noting that [i]t would be an entirely different case if the judge had assessed [Hill's] punishment at or near the [incorrect] minimum [of] five years ..., because then Hill might have received a sentence at or near the [correct] minimum [of] two years [if he had been resentenced under the correct sentencing range], and thus his argument to prejudice would have been substantial). Although Shaw involved a jury's sentencing decision, while this case involves a trial judge's sentencing decision on a guilty plea, Shaw recognized a general principle that applies with full force and effect here, i.e., a defendant is not prejudiced by the use of an incorrect minimum sentence when the sentence imposed is within the correct sentencing range and is substantially in excess of the incorrect minimum sentence. Accord McCormack, 248 Fed. Appx. at 34 (applying earlier version of Oklahoma's prior felony enhancement statute and holding that a prisoner challenging his enhanced sentence could not show prejudice under Strickland where the jury imposed a sentence ... far above the [mistakenly] instructed minimum of twenty years, [and] it [was thus] unlikely that a [corrected] minimum of ten years would have led them to reduce the eighty years imposed). In this case, of course, Judge Lindley did not impose the maximum sentence of life imprisonment like the jury in Shaw. Nonetheless, assuming that Judge Lindley was applying the pre-July 2001 version of the enhancement statute, the thirty-year sentences that he imposed exceeded the incorrect minimum sentence (i.e., twenty years) by ten years, a substantial upward departure in our opinion. [5] As a result, as in Shaw, it is pure speculation to say that Judge Lindley would have imposed a sentence of less than twenty years if he had been applying a two years to life sentencing range instead of a twenty years to life sentencing range. In sum, Mr. McGee has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would have received a sentence of less than twenty years if Judge Lindley had resentenced him without the prior felony enhancers. Accordingly, Mr. McGee has failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland, and we affirm the denial of habeas relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.