holding in § 2255 case that where legal advice to defendant underestimated maximum punishment, ineffectiveness inquiry included question whether defendant would have pled guilty if he had known of possible sentence
How later courts described this case
- holding in § 2255 case that where legal advice to defendant underestimated maximum punishment, ineffectiveness inquiry included question whether defendant would have pled guilty if he had known of possible sentence
- holding that Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 203, 121 S.Ct. 696, 700, 148 L.Ed.2d 604 (2001), which cites Spriggs, abrogates the significantly harsh test only in the federal sentencing context
- observing that the defendant’s trial attorney conceded that he was unfamiliar with the sentencing guidelines and that he misinformed his client that he faced only 6 to 12 months if he was convicted when in actuality the defendant was subject to a range of 70 to 87 months
- requiring the defendant, in order to demonstrate prejudice, to show that there was a reasonable probability (1) that he would have pleaded guilty but for counsel’s ineffective assistance and (2) that the plea would indeed have reduced the sentence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
Because I do not agree with a significant part of the majority’s analysis, see United States v. Grammas, 371 F.3d 281 (5th Cir.2004) (Emilio M. Garza, J., dissenting), I concur in the judgment only.