Opinion ID: 170630
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Proposed Plea Agreement

Text: The district court assumed that Kaufman performed deficiently regarding the proposed plea agreement, but ruled that Mr. Martinez failed to show prejudice. We perceive no error. Mr. Martinez contends that Kaufman “was ineffective in failing to at least proffer the existence of the plea agreement to his client and determine if Mr. -6- Martinez would have accepted the agreement.” Aplt. Br. at 21. “[E]ffective assistance of counsel includes counsel’s informed opinion as to what pleas should be entered.” United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432, 1442 (10th Cir. 1997). A defendant is prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance in regard to plea bargaining if there is “a reasonable probability that but for incompetent counsel [the] defendant would have accepted the plea offer and pleaded guilty.” Carter, 130 F.3d at 1442. Mr. Martinez, however, has not alleged that the attorney who negotiated the agreement failed to advise him about it, and Mr. Martinez’s present counsel did not contest below that Mr. Martinez “may have seen [the proposed] plea agreement when represented by [the prior attorney].” United States v. Martinez, No. CV-03-WM-0409, Doc. 114 at 1 (Resp. in support of § 2255 motion). Moreover, at sentencing, Mr. Martinez indicated that he had entered guilty pleas in other cases, but adamantly insisted that he was innocent of the crime for which he was being sentenced. Although Mr. Martinez’s attorney asserted in one of the § 2255 pleadings that Mr. Martinez would have accepted the plea agreement, this bald assertion is hardly sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing, much less relief. The standard for obtaining an evidentiary hearing “is higher than notice pleading.” United States v. Cervini, 379 F.3d 987, 994 (10th Cir. 2004). “District courts are not required to hold evidentiary hearings in collateral attacks without a firm idea of what the testimony will encompass and how it will support -7- a movant’s claim.” Id.; see also United States v. Aiello, 814 F.2d 109, 113-14 (2d Cir. 1987) (“Airy generalities, conclusory assertions and hearsay statements” do not warrant an evidentiary hearing). Mr. Martinez has failed to provide sufficient support for his claim that he was prejudiced by any failure of Kaufman to consult with him about a plea agreement. The district court properly rejected this claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing.