Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneytrialpleamotionguilty plea
defendanttestimonypleamotionoverruledguilty plearehabilitation

Related Cases

Warpar Mfg. Corp. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 606 F.Supp. 852
View Case »
Koch v. Specialized Care Services, Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 362
View Case »
Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., 247 F.R.D. 567, 69 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1035
View Case »
In re Marriage of King, 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3196, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4297
View Case »
United States v. Monsanto Lopez, 798 Fed.Appx. 688
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Snitz, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 433620

Facts

On June 2, 1999, police responded to a disturbance report at Snitz's home, where they conducted a warrantless search that uncovered drugs and a firearm. Snitz was charged with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and entered a guilty plea on August 30, 1999, after being informed of the potential consequences. He later claimed that his attorneys misled him about the length of his sentence and failed to challenge the legality of the search.

Defendant retained Jeffrey M. Goodwin and Brent R. Hankins to represent him. On August 30, 1999, defendant entered a plea of guilty. In return, the government agreed to recommend a sentence at the low end of the guideline range, and to investigate the possibility of a downward departure for substantial assistance under United States Sentencing Guideline § 5K1.1.

Issue

Did Snitz's guilty plea result from ineffective assistance of counsel, and was the warrantless search of his home legal?

Defendant seeks to withdraw his guilty plea. He specifically alleges that counsel assured him that he would not receive more than 60 months in prison and that he would be eligible for a drug treatment program that would further reduce his sentence.

Rule

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance was prejudicial.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show that the performance of counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that the deficient performance was prejudicial.

Analysis

The court found that Snitz's attorneys did not make reckless promises regarding his sentence and that their strategy to avoid pretrial motions was reasonable. The court also noted that Snitz was aware of the mandatory minimum sentence and that his plea was voluntary despite his claims to the contrary.

The Court finds that Goodwin and Hankins did not recklessly promise defendant a specific amount of time in prison. Their testimony on this point was unequivocal. They swore that although they might have told defendant that they would seek a sentence of three or four years, they did not promise that he would receive such a sentence if he pled guilty, or that he would receive time off for participation in a prison drug rehabilitation program.

Conclusion

The court denied Snitz's motion to vacate his sentence, concluding that he did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or that the search was illegal.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence By A Person In Federal Custody (Doc. # 37) filed March 2, 2001 be and hereby is OVERRULED.

Who won?

United States; the court found that Snitz's claims were unsubstantiated and that his guilty plea was valid.

The Court presumes that the proceedings which led to defendant's conviction were correct. See Klein v. United States, 880 F.2d 250, 253 (10th Cir.1989).

You must be