Legal Document

531 U.S. 198121 S.Ct. 696148 L.Ed.2d 604 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.PAUL L. GLOVER, PETITIONERv.UNITED STATES No. 99-8576. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED Argued November 27, 2000 Decided January 9, 2001 Syllabus The probation office recommended petitioner Glover's federal labor racketeering, money laundering, and tax evasion convictions grouped under Sentencing Guidelines §3D1.2, which allows grouping counts involving substantially same harm. Government objected laundering with others, trial court agreed. offense level was thus increased by two levels, resulting an sentence between 6 21 months. His counsel did not press issue raise it on appeal Seventh Circuit, affirmed his conviction sentence. Glover then filed a pro se motion correct sentence, arguing counsel's failure pursue ineffective assistance, without would have been lower. District denied motion, determining Circuit precedent month sentencing increase significant enough amount prejudice for purposes Strickland v. 466 668. As result, decide whether fell below reasonable standard competence, ineffective-assistance claim. affirmed, relying Government's theory even were performance ineffective, precedent, constitute prejudice. Held: erred engrafting onto branch test requirement must meet significance. Pp. 4_7. (a) no longer asserts prison term Strickland. drew substance its rule from Lockhart Fretwell, 506 364, 369, holds some circumstances mere difference outcome will suffice establish explained last Term holding does supplant analysis. See Williams Taylor, 529 362, 393. incorrect rely deny relief persons who might show deficient their object error law affecting calculation because baseline standard. Court's jurisprudence suggests actual jail time has Sixth Amendment E.g., Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25. Moreover, decisions right jury criminal case, see id., at 29, do control question showing prejudice, context claim, requires increase. Circuit's well considered event, there obvious dividing line measure how much substantial Although defendant's particular decision factor failing argue point constitutes determinate system constrained discretion such as cannot serve bar Here considers itself, resulted ruling had error, correctable appeal. Court, but clear flowed asserted sentencing. 4_6. (b) various arguments affirming judgment neither raised nor resolved below, outside questions presented petition certiorari. Whether these issues remain open, if so they merit, lower courts determine first instance. 6_7. 182 F.3d 921, reversed remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SEVENTH CIRCUIT Kennedy, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion Justice Kennedy 1 rests upon initial assumption, we accept analytic purposes, determination after petitioner's offense. legal alleges, least months perhaps We this "prejudice" 668 (1984). ready concede now acknowledges flow established In agreement point, reverse remand further proceedings. 2 * 1980's early 1990's, Paul Vice President General Counsel Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers, Warehouse Workers Union (Independent). evidence showed used over union's investments enrich himself co-conspirators through kickbacks. When malfeasance discovered, he tried Northern Illinois. ended when could agree, second convicted him. presentence investigation report prepared together Commission, Manual §3D1.2 (Nov. 1994), "counts harm." Government, insisting counts, recommendation, held hearing matter. ruled, should offenses. ruling, viewed it, conformance those Courts Appeals refused group reasons. See, e.g., Lombardi, 5 568 (CA1 1993); Porter, 909 F.2d 789 (CA4 1990); 984 298 (CA9 Johnson, 971 562 (CA10 1992); Harper, 972 321 (CA11 1992). court, attorneys submit papers offer extensive oral contesting no-grouping argument advanced Government. decided yielding concomitant range. sentenced 84 prison, middle range 78 97 3 On (the represented him Court) issue; instead, concentrated claims certain testimony admitted assessed two-level perjury trial. A short appeal, different panel that, circumstances, offenses proper §3D1.2. Wilson, 98 281 (1996). half later, rejected both 101 1183 4 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994 ed. Supp. III). issue, argued, position confirmed, view, Appeals' Wilson. counsel, contended, sentencing, clarity force contest argument, present briefs call Wilson panel's attention following argument. He argued absent levels lower, 63 Under theory, 84-month received unlawful anywhere supra. competence. only suffered within meaning App. Reply Brief Petitioner 1a_22a. Citing Durrive 548 (CA7 1993), contended additional months, 21a. theory. 921 (1999) (table). granted 530 ____ (2000). II puts forth proposition It rule, more, "inconsistent cases unworkable." 18. 7 appears no-prejudice our 364 (1993). Id., 369. extracted here, denies said render unreliable fundamentally unfair. Durrive, supra, 550_551. 393 (2000) ("Cases Nix Whiteside, 475 157 (1986), (1993), justify departure straightforward application ineffectiveness deprive defendant substantive procedural entitles him"); 414 (opinion O'Connor, J.) ("As I my concurring [Lockhart], `in vast majority . [t]he determinative question-whether "a probability unprofessional result proceeding different"-remains unchanged' "). attacking Authority suggest minimal Quite contrary, Compare 25 (1972) (holding assistance provided crime results imprisonment), Scott Illinois, 440 367 (1979) imprisonment). Our case here. Those limited where potential punishment imprisonment six more. Argersinger, 29 (citing Duncan Louisiana, 391 145 (1968)). But claim imprisonment. 8 Indeed, relevant measured absolute terms fraction total authorized Martin 109 1177, 1996) (Rovner, dissenting denial rehearing en banc). consider Spriggs Collins, 993 85, 88 (CA5 1993) (requiring "significantly less harsh" Texas discretionary scheme), Phillips, 210 345 2000) (finding led sentence). hold test. strategies, retrospect, criticized leading harsher which, express ultimate merits us, III 9 makes alternative grounds affirm Appeals. Among contentions, deficient; merit event; prevailed fact result. disputes contentions. need describe great detail, despite parties joined part points, passed ordinary course below. Taylor Freeland & Kronz, 503 638, 646 (1992). general furthermore, Rule 14.1(a). 10 reversed. remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 11 ordered.

Classification Label: 0