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

defendantattorneydiscoveryappealhearingpleamotionfelonymotion to dismiss
defendantattorneyhearingpleamotionfelonygrand jurymotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Kilopass Technology Inc. v. Sidense Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 5141843
View Case »
U.S. v. Kloess, 97 F.Supp.2d 1084
View Case »
Mitchell v. United States, 314 A.3d 1144
View Case »
Walden v. Hoke, 189 W.Va. 222, 429 S.E.2d 504
View Case »
People v. Winkler, 56 Cal.App.5th 1102, 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 88, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,479, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,909
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Moyer, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 2266906

Facts

Moyer was indicted on multiple counts, including possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He pled guilty to one count under a plea agreement that included a 144-month sentence and waived his right to appeal. Moyer later filed a motion to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds, including failure to challenge his career offender designation and the validity of the search warrant that led to the discovery of cocaine and a firearm in his residence.

Moyer was indicted by a federal grand jury on August 21, 2014. Count One of the indictment charged Moyer with possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Count Two charged him with possession with intent to distribute a measurable quantity of a mixture or substance containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Count Three charged him with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

Issue

Did Moyer's attorney provide ineffective assistance of counsel that prejudiced Moyer's defense, warranting the vacating of his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?

Did Moyer's attorney provide ineffective assistance of counsel that prejudiced Moyer's defense, warranting the vacating of his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?

Rule

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, as outlined in Strickland v. Washington.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, as outlined in Strickland v. Washington.

Analysis

The court analyzed Moyer's claims under the Strickland standard, finding that Moyer's attorney's actions were within the range of reasonable professional assistance. The court determined that Moyer could not prove that any alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of his case, particularly given Moyer's admissions during the plea hearing and the overwhelming evidence against him.

The court analyzed Moyer's claims under the Strickland standard, finding that Moyer's attorney's actions were within the range of reasonable professional assistance. The court determined that Moyer could not prove that any alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of his case, particularly given Moyer's admissions during the plea hearing and the overwhelming evidence against him.

Conclusion

The court granted the government's motion to dismiss Moyer's § 2255 motion and denied Moyer's request to vacate his sentence, concluding that he failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court granted the government's motion to dismiss Moyer's § 2255 motion and denied Moyer's request to vacate his sentence, concluding that he failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because Moyer could not establish that his attorney's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced by any alleged errors.

The government prevailed in the case because Moyer could not establish that his attorney's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced by any alleged errors.

You must be