Opinion ID: 148687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Habeas Challenge to Counsel's Effectiveness

Text: We review the district court's denial of Parker's § 2255 petition for clear error on factual matters and de novo on questions of law. Tezak v. United States, 256 F.3d 702, 712 (7th Cir.2001). The Sixth Amendment provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. U.S. Const. Amend. VI. The Amendment guarantees, among other things, the right to counsel's effectiveness in those proceedings where a right exists also to have counsel appointed or retained. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in a criminal case must show that counsel's representation was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To establish prejudice, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.  Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis added). The prejudice element is established in the plea bargaining context, as the Supreme Court found in Hill v. Lockhart, by showing a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.  474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (emphasis added). Parker admits that he would have pleaded guilty without the plea agreement, and thus would not have insisted on going to trial as required by Hill. But he urges us to distinguish Hill and rely instead on the broader language of Strickland to find prejudice if he can show that an unconditional plea would have resulted in a lower sentence. Appellant's Br. at 31; see also Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 203, 121 S.Ct. 696, 148 L.Ed.2d 604 (2001) ([A]ny amount of actual jail time has Sixth Amendment significance.); Wyatt v. U.S., 574 F.3d 455, 458 (7th Cir.2009) (recognizing that a petitioner might be able to show prejudice if but for counsel's performance he would have enter[ed] an unconditional plea in hope of obtaining a lower sentence); Hunter v. United States, 160 F.3d 1109, 1116 (6th Cir.1998) (Moore, J., concurring) ( Hill ... does not foreclose the possibility that in an appropriate case a petitioner could satisfy the Strickland prejudice prong by demonstrating a reasonable probability that but for the alleged errors the conditions of [the petitioner's] guilty plea or his sentence would have been different.); Richard Klein, Due Process Denied: Judicial Coercion in the Plea Bargaining Process, 32 Hofstra L.Rev. 1349. 1368-69 (2004) (arguing that Hill's prejudice standard is underinclusive); Emily Rubin, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Guilty Pleas: Toward a Paradigm of Informed Consent, 80 Va. L.Rev. 1699, 1705-06 (1994) (same). The government counters that the only court to address Parker's argument in this context has rejected it. See Short v. United States, 471 F.3d 686, 696 (6th Cir.2006) (finding no prejudice even if the petitioner could have received a better sentence by entering an unconditional plea rather than taking counsel's advice and accepting a plea agreement). The government also contends that Parker's case is controlled by our precedent finding that whether a petitioner could have negotiated a better plea deal is irrelevant in the ineffective assistance context. Bethel v. United States, 458 F.3d 711, 720 (7th Cir.2006); see also Wyatt v. U.S., 574 F.3d 455, 458 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Martinez, 169 F.3d 1049, 1053 (7th Cir.1999). We need not address these arguments because Parker's appeal fails for a more fundamental reason: Parker has only himself to blame for admitting under oath to a quantity of drugs he now disputes. Prejudice requires a showing that counsel's poor performance not only is a but-for cause of the complained-of result, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, but also deprive[s] the defendant of any substantive or procedural right to which the law entitles him. Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 372, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993); see also Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 175-76, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986) (finding no prejudice although the outcome would have been different had the defendant been able to commit perjury). Parker was not deprived of the right to speak truthfully when the sentencing judge asked him how he pleaded to distributing between 50 and 150 kilograms of cocaine. Nor was he deprived of the right to speak truthfully when the judge asked whether he made the drug-quantity admission voluntarily. Parker committed perjury when he admitted to more than 50 kilograms if we are to believe his argument in this court that he was responsible only for 15 kilograms. Had Parker told the sentencing judge what he now claims is the truth and admitted to 15 kilograms yet still tried to plead guilty to the 50 to 150 kilograms as required by the plea agreement, the judge could not have accepted the plea, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), in which case had he persisted in pleading guilty without the benefit of the plea agreement, as he argues he would have, then he might have received one of the lesser sentences we described above. (Or he might have received a greater sentence but, as we also mentioned above, we do not address that issue. Whatever the resultant sentence would have been, greater or lesser, it is the one that Parker now seeks, as his attorney confirmed for us at oral argument.) As Parker was not denied the ability to respond truthfully, under oath, to the judge's questions, and thus not denied the ability to receive the sentence he claims would have been better, we cannot say that counsel's deficient performance rendered this case's result ... unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair. Fretwell, 506 U.S. at 372, 113 S.Ct. 838 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Moreover, perjury is illegal, see 18 U.S.C. § 1621, and a defendant cannot establish prejudice by illegal means. Can anyone doubt what practices and problems would be spawned by such a rule and what volumes of litigation it would generate? Nix, 475 U.S. at 176, 106 S.Ct. 988. Indeed, the illegality of Parker's acts renders this one of those situations in which it would be unjust to characterize the likelihood of a different outcome as legitimate `prejudice.' Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391-92, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); see also Goodman v. Bertrand, 467 F.3d 1022, 1027-28 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Washington v. Smith, 219 F.3d 620, 632-33 (7th Cir.2000)) (finding that the prejudice standard looks beyond outcome determination to the fundamental fairness of the proceeding ... in cases where the defendant challenges his conviction based upon unusual circumstances that, as a matter of law, do not typically inform the court's inquiry.). Thus Parker's prejudice arguments fail, because the Supreme Court's Sixth Amendment jurisprudence establishes that a defendant's illegal activity intervenes to sever any causal connection between counsel's poor performance and the disputed result. Nix, 475 U.S. at 176, 106 S.Ct. 988. Even could this jurisprudence be read more generally as establishing that counsel's poor performance must be not only a but-for cause, but also the proximate or legal cause of the disputed result, see, e.g., Hinton v. Rudasill, 624 F.Supp.2d 48, 52 (D.D.C.2009); Arakelian v. United States, No. 08 Civ. 3224, 2009 WL 211486, at  (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2009); Stravers v. Schriro, No. CV 07-0466-PHX-DGC, 2008 WL 3285915, at  (D.Ariz. Aug. 7, 2008), neither has Parker established that counsel's misadvice legally caused his larger sentence. Just as oxygen, though a but-for cause or necessary condition of fire, does not legally cause an arson, for rather the person setting the fire does, see United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 948 (7th Cir.2010), neither did counsel's misadvice legally cause Parker's resulting sentence. Rather, we find that his perjury did, because Parker raises no argument that his counsel directly encouraged, foresaw, or otherwise proximately caused Parker's perjury, see, e.g., Corcoran v. Levenhagen, 593 F.3d 547, 551 (7th Cir.2010) (Arguments not raised on appeal ... are waived.), much less any argument as to what the proper test for proximate cause should be in this context. Cf. Hemi Group v. City of New York, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 130 S.Ct. 983, 991, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, ___ (2010) (quoting Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992)) (The concepts of direct relationship and foreseeability are of course two of the `many shapes [proximate cause] took at common law.').