684 F. App'x 555
6th Cir.2017Background
- David MacLloyd was indicted on federal drug charges and represented primarily by attorney Thomas Loeb; a formal written plea offer (approximately 11–14 years, with cooperation terms) was reportedly on the table before a January 13, 2009 hearing.
- At the January 13 hearing MacLloyd stated he had discussed the plea with counsel and declined to plead; shortly thereafter Loeb allegedly ceased communications about the plea and later withdrew, citing a breakdown in the attorney–client relationship and a retainer-payment dispute.
- A superseding indictment followed; MacLloyd was convicted at trial and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. He later learned (or alleges he learned) he had not been fully informed of the written plea offer prior to rejecting it.
- MacLloyd filed a pro se § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance for failing to communicate the plea offer; the district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding MacLloyd failed to identify specific deficient acts and failed to show prejudice.
- The Sixth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability as to whether the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on MacLloyd’s claim that Loeb did not fully advise him of a favorable plea offer, and reversed and remanded for a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on § 2255 ineffective-assistance claim | MacLloyd: Loeb failed to fully inform him of a formal written plea offer before January 13, 2009; he would have accepted it and was prejudiced | Government: Record shows MacLloyd was informed and rejected multiple offers; trial judge may rely on record and recollection to deny a hearing | Reversed: district court applied incorrect standard and must hold an evidentiary hearing because the record does not conclusively foreclose MacLloyd’s claims |
| Whether counsel’s failure to communicate a plea can constitute deficient performance | MacLloyd: Frye and related precedent require counsel to convey and explain formal offers; Loeb’s limited, late comment was insufficient | Government: Asserts MacLloyd acknowledged discussing the plea in court; thus no deficient performance | Held: Allegations and corroboration are sufficient to raise a factual dispute not resolvable on the record; hearing required |
| Whether MacLloyd suffered Strickland prejudice from not accepting the plea | MacLloyd: He would have accepted an 11–14 year deal (with cooperation) rather than the much higher sentence he received | Government: Points to MacLloyd’s history of rejecting offers, arguing he wouldn’t have accepted this one | Held: Record does not conclusively disprove prejudice; MacLloyd’s assertions and sentence disparity meet the light burden for an evidentiary hearing |
| Proper standard for denying a § 2255 hearing | MacLloyd: District court must grant a hearing unless motion and record “conclusively show” no relief | Government: Relied on cases rejecting conclusory allegations to uphold no-hearing denials | Held: District court misstated and misapplied the standard; it must hold a hearing unless allegations are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or mere conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962) (hearing required when alleged events occurred outside the record and cannot be conclusively resolved by files or judge’s recollection)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (duty to communicate formal plea offers and consequences of allowing offers to lapse)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (prejudice analysis when defendant rejects plea and proceeds to trial)
- Smith v. United States, 348 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2003) (hearing required to determine whether counsel fully informed defendant of plea’s nature and consequences)
- Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2007) (denial of hearing appropriate only when allegations are contradicted by record, inherently incredible, or conclusions)
- Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2003) (defendant’s statements can be sufficient to show he would have accepted a plea)
- Huff v. United States, 734 F.3d 600 (6th Cir. 2013) (standard of review: denial of evidentiary hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion)