Opinion ID: 803134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Miscalculation of Possible Sentence

Text: Defendant argues that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because his attorney provided ineffective assistance by assuring him “that his sentence could only be based on the offenses of conviction, that his guideline range was 70-87 months, . . . that his sentence would not exceed the mandatory minimum of 10 years,” and “that the court could not and would not use uncharged conduct” in determining his sentence. Aplt. Br. at 19. The district court rejected Defendant’s argument, stating that “‘[a] miscalculation or erroneous sentence estimation by defense counsel is not a constitutionally deficient performance rising to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.’” R., Vol. 1 at 40 (quoting United States v. Gordon, 4 F.3d 1567, 1570 (10th Cir. 1993)). The court added that even if counsel’s advice had been deficient, Defendant could not establish prejudice because “a defendant [who] enters a guilty plea pursuant to a plea petition and plea colloquy in which he acknowledges the potential maximum sentence and that the sentence would be determined by the judge . . . is not prejudiced by counsel’s errors in estimating a potential sentence.” R., Vol. 1 at 40 (citing United States v. Silva, 430 F.3d 1096, -8- 1100 (10th Cir. 2005)). In our view, no reasonable jurist could debate that Defendant was not prejudiced by any deficient performance of his counsel because the district court clearly informed him properly before accepting his plea.