Emond Logan v. United States, 910 F.3d 864

Logan transported over 150 kg of cocaine and was indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and money laundering; counsel Zambon was appointed as counsel of record.
Logan’s family separately retained Leo Terrell, who delayed filing a formal appearance; Terrell advised Logan outside the formal attorney-of-record role.
Zambon negotiated a plea offer (guilty plea to the drug conspiracy, money‑laundering count dismissed) with a ten‑year sentencing cap; Zambon advised the plea was very good and explained trial risks.
After signing the capped plea, Logan spoke multiple times with Terrell, who persuaded him to reject the plea at the change‑of‑plea hearing; the government withdrew the ten‑year offer.
A second plea without a sentence cap was later accepted; Logan was sentenced to 35 years. He then filed a § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance based on Terrell’s advice.
The district court denied relief, finding that Zambon’s effective representation satisfied the Sixth Amendment despite Terrell’s deficient, ‘‘shadow’’ representation; this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Logan was deprived of effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining	Terrell’s deficient advice led Logan to reject a favorable ten‑year‑cap plea; this prejudiced him	Zambon, the attorney of record, adequately advised Logan about plea risks and recommended acceptance; conflicting advice from a non‑record lawyer does not deny the Sixth Amendment	No Sixth Amendment violation; Zambon’s competent advice satisfied the right to effective counsel
Whether counsel’s deficiency caused prejudice under Strickland/Frye (i.e., reasonable probability Logan would have accepted the earlier plea)	Terrell’s advice caused Logan to forgo the ten‑year cap and therefore suffered prejudice	Because Logan had competent advice from Zambon and made an informed choice, he cannot show the required prejudice	Prejudice not established; the presence of competent counsel of record defeats the § 2255 claim

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (ineffective assistance can include erroneous advice during plea bargaining)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (right to effective counsel extends to plea negotiations; prejudice standard for rejected plea offers)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Gonzalez‑Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to counsel includes right to effective counsel)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (objective standard of reasonableness for counsel’s performance)
Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011) (caution against hindsight in evaluating plea‑stage counsel decisions)
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (defendant retains ultimate authority to decide whether to plead guilty)
Harrison v. Motley, 478 F.3d 750 (6th Cir. 2007) (conflicting advice from multiple attorneys does not necessarily deprive defendant of counsel)
United States v. Martini, 31 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 1994) (Sixth Amendment does not guarantee good advice from every consulted lawyer)