Opinion ID: 3046571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stanifer

Text: Stanifer makes three substantive ineffective-assistance claims arising from her sentencing, arguing that her counsel (1) failed to object to the PIR’s criminal-history calculation, (2) failed to independently investigate the case, and (3) was inexperienced. Additionally, Stanifer contends that she received ineffective assistance when her counsel advised her to plead guilty without “advising [her] of the available options and the possible consequences.” After our careful review of the record, we conclude that Stanifer did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. The plea agreement and the district court’s thorough colloquy belie Stanifer’s argument that she did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty. As for Stanifer’s other alleged errors, even if an error could be shown, she has not shown prejudice. For example, even if her counsel failed to object to the PIR’s criminal-history calculation, Stanifer has presented no evidence that her PIR would have been different but for counsel’s failure to object. Additionally, even if counsel failed to independently examine Stanifer’s criminal history and find other witnesses, Stanifer has not even alleged that the criminal history is inaccurate or that the witnesses would have undermined confidence in her conviction. Finally, even if counsel’s inexperience rose to the level of a constitutional deficiency, Stanifer only speculates about the possible prejudice of such an error. The district court gave careful considerations to the contentions made by petitioners and properly rejected petitioners’ claims.