Brock-Miller v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion under 28 USC section 2255 that challenged her drug conspiracy conviction on ground that her trial counsel was ineffective during plea negotiations that resulted in defendant pleading guilty to said charge in exchange for 10-year sentence. Record showed that, prior to defendant entering guilty plea, counsel had filed frivolous objection to govt. motion seeking enhanced sentence based on defendant prior conviction, where counsel had cited to wrong statute to support said argument, under circumstances where defendant had valid legal argument to avoid enhanced sentence had counsel adequately researched defendant’s criminal history. Moreover, counsel was also ineffective by grossly overestimating defendant’s potential sentence exposure. As such, remand for hearing was required to generate findings as to reason for counsel’s failure to properly investigate defendant’s criminal record and to identify factors counsel used when recommending that defendant plead guilty to said charge and accepting 10-year sentence. Ct. rejected govt. argument that any mistake made by counsel was not sufficiently egregious to establish deficient performance.