Opinion ID: 49809
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counsel’s Erroneous Advice

Text: Cook further argues that the district court erred in finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective for providing erroneous advice regarding whether he was charged with only the drugs found in the house or also with the drugs found in his truck. Clark contends that this advice led him to reject the government’s plea offer when he would have otherwise accepted it. Cook also filed a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which is at issue in the present appeal, arguing that: (1) counsel misinformed him about the drugs found in the truck; (2) he would have accepted the plea offer had counsel not made the misleading statement; and (3) the district court applied the wrong standard for determining prejudice. He also submitted new statements 2 Unlike in Issue I, there is not enough evidence in the record to substantiate the government’s claims that counsel’s performance was not ineffective based on the strong evidence against Cook because the trial transcripts are not in the record. 8 from himself and his father supporting these arguments. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration and motion to submit the new statements. Here, although Cook asserts that he would have accepted the plea offer but for counsel’s statements regarding the drugs in the truck, the only supporting evidence that Cook provided in the record was his own statement after the fact. Therefore, Cook’s evidence was insufficient. See Diaz, 930 F.2d at 835. In addition, the district court properly denied Cook’s motion for reconsideration and motion to submit new affidavits because the evidence was available during the pendency of the § 2255 motion. See Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Thus, because Cook did not demonstrate that his counsel’s advice prejudiced him, we affirm the district court as to Issue 3. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069.