Attorney’s failure to advise of career-offender provisions of sentencing guidelines is not necessarily ineffective assistance of counsel

SENTENCING/PLEA/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE United States v. Hamilton, No. 06-5231, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Dec. 18, 2007)(N.D. Oklahoma). Appeal of convictions and sentence for possession of cocaine base (crack cocaine) with intent to distribute and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). HELD: In light of district court’s careful explanation of plea consequences, and defendant’s testimony that he understood those consequences, defendant’s allegation that he would have gone to trial but for his attorney’s failure to advise him of career-offender enhancement provisions of sentencing guidelines is insufficient to establish sufficient prejudice to prevail on ineffective assistance of counsel claim. However, a defendant who acknowledges district court’s sentencing discretion is not necessarily precluded from demonstrating prejudice in every case because proper inquiry is whether defendant has shown that but for counsel’s conduct he would not have pled guilty. Read the opinion here.