Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him during guilty plea negotiations that sentencing judge could consider dismissed, "read-in" charges as result of plea agreement when considering defendant's sentence on charges of human trafficking, pimping and pandering, and that he would not have pleaded guilty to said charges had he known that said read-in charges could be considered by sentencing judge. Defendant was not entitled to evidentiary hearing on merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where defendant failed to support his claim of prejudice with anything more than conclusory allegation that he would have gone to trial had he realized that sentencing judge was free to consider read-in charges. Also, defendant failed to: (1) show that there was reasonable probability that outcome of guilty plea process would have been critical to his decision to plead guilty, but for counsel's ineffectiveness; and (2) explain why terms of plea questionnaire, waiver of rights, or discussion of plea agreement at sentencing hearing did not disabuse him of mistaken notion that sentencing judge could not consider read-in charges when imposing his sentence.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel