Harris v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his 20-year sentence on drug distribution charge, even though defendant asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge whether defendant’s prior Indiana drug dealing conviction qualified as predicate conviction for purposes of imposing potential mandatory life sentence under 21 USC section 841(b)(1)(A) (viii). Record showed that defendant agreed to plead guilty to charged offense in exchange for 20-year sentence in order to avoid potential life sentence, and that subsequent case law established that defendant’s Indiana drug dealing conviction did not qualify as predicate conviction for instant enhanced sentence because Indiana’s definition of controlled substance concerned definition of isomer that was applied more broadly than federal law. However, even if defendant’s trial counsel was aware of potential challenge to defendant’s drug dealing conviction as predicate conviction for enhanced sentence, counsel was not ineffective for failing to alert defendant to such challenge, where: (1) at time of sentencing, no case law held that any state had defined isomers more broadly than federal law; (2) govt. may have withdrawn plea offer if defendant had raised said challenge: (3) if said challenge were unsuccessful, defendant would have faced mandatory life sentence; and (4) it was objectively reasonable for defendant’s trial counsel to pursue instant plea deal to avoid potential life sentence, as opposed to pursue novel challenge to defendant’s predicate convictions with risk of obtaining mandatory life sentence.