Jackson v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing defendant’s habeas petition challenging his drug-offense conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for misinforming him that he would not be eligible for Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) sentence reduction if he pleaded guilty to instant charge. Defendant asserted that he would have pleaded guilty (instead of taking case to trial) if he had been properly advised of potential for FSA treatment, and while Dist. Ct. could properly fail to follow instant Magistrate Judge’s findings that defendant was credible in his claim, and that defendant’s counsel was not credible in his claim that defendant always wanted to take case to trial, Dist. Ct. could not do so here in denying defendant’s habeas petition, where it had failed to conduct its own de novo evidentiary hearing to assess credibility of defendant and his trial counsel.