Demond L. Osley v. United States
751 F.3d 1214
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Osley, a federal prisoner, was charged with multiple counts related to sexual trafficking of a minor.
- During plea negotiations, the government and defense believed the §1591(b) minimum did not apply under an older version of the law.
- Osley rejected a plea offer and went to trial, where the jury convicted on all counts.
- The Adam Walsh Act added a 15-year mandatory minimum under §1591(b)(1) before sentencing; Osley learned of this only after conviction.
- PSI calculations applied cross-reference and enhancements, yielding a 210–262 month guideline range and potential life supervised release; Osley argued Apprendi-related and double-counting issues.
- Resentencing maintained an upward variance; Osley’s sentence remained 365 months concurrent with other counts, plus life supervised release and a $400 fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not informing mandatory minimum | Osley | Osley failed to prove prejudice | No prejudice shown under Lafler framework |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge double counting | Osley | No prejudice; same sentence would have been imposed | Harmless error; no prejudice shown |
| Failure to inform about life term of supervised release | Osley | Counsel informed maximum, not required to detail life term | No prejudice; not a due-process problem |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (plea considerations under Strickland)
- Missouri v. Frye, --- U.S.— (2012) (plea offers and prejudice under plea process (Frye))
- Lafler v. Cooper, --- S. Ct.— (2012) (prejudice for rejecting a plea under plea negotiation)
- In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam; plea-related prejudice guidance)
- Bejarano, 249 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (court not required to inform exact supervised release term)
- Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (harmless-error approach to double counting)