Quintana v. Chandler

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly advise him of consequences of failing to accept plea bargain that required defendant to serve only one more year in prison verses consecutive 6-year and 21-year terms of incarceration that defendant actually received after he took case to trial on sexual assault and kidnapping charges. Defendant failed to establish any prejudice arising out of counsel’s failure to advise him that he could receive consecutive sentences that required that he serve 85, as opposed to 50 percent, of said sentence if he failed to accept plea, where record showed that: (1) defendant’s assertions as to what he would have done had he been properly advised by counsel were uncorroborated; and (2) during plea process, defendant insisted that he would not accept plea because he was innocent of instant serious charges. Moreover, although disparity in proposed sentence in plea bargaining and defendant’s actual sentence was great, defendant was required to show something more that sentence lengths to establish that he would have pleaded guilty to said charges if properly advised by counsel.