Fred Thompson v. United States, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18073

Background

Thompson pleaded guilty (written plea agreement) to methamphetamine distribution conspiracy and using a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense; plea agreement stated statutory minimums and left most sentencing issues open.
At a recess the day of the change-of-plea hearing, Thompson’s lawyer advised him to plead guilty and allegedly told him the judge would "most likely" impose a 12-year sentence; Thompson signed the plea agreement and pleaded guilty immediately thereafter.
At the plea colloquy the district court told Thompson the least the court could impose was 12 years (consecutive minimums of 5 and 7 years), and Thompson stated he understood and acted of his own free will.
On direct appeal this court acknowledged close questions about the district court’s comments but held Thompson failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty absent any Rule 11 error.
Thompson filed a § 2255 motion alleging: (1) improper judicial participation in plea negotiations (Rule 11), (2) an oral promise of a 12-year sentence breached by the government, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for advising him to plead and failing to object.
The district court denied the § 2255 motion; this Court affirms, concluding prior direct-appeal rulings preclude relitigation of the Rule 11 claim, Thompson failed to show an oral promise induced his plea, and he failed to show prejudice from counsel’s alleged deficiencies.

Issues

Issue	Thompson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations in violation of Rule 11	Court’s remarks and demeanor improperly influenced plea	Prior direct appeal addressed the claim; any comments were isolated and not shown to have caused the plea	Declined to revisit — claim precluded by direct appeal; no reversible Rule 11 error shown previously
Whether the court’s statements and the government’s silence constituted an oral promise of a 12-year sentence that induced the plea and was binding	The court’s oral “indication” of a 12-year sentence, coupled with government silence, amounted to an oral promise amending the written plea agreement	Written plea agreement and plea colloquy negate any oral promise; defendant’s acknowledgments carry presumptive verity	Rejected — no showing government made a promise that induced the plea; integration clause and plea statements control
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising Thompson to plead based on a likely 12-year sentence and not objecting to judicial participation	Counsel’s advice caused Thompson to plead; but-for that advice he would have elected trial	Even assuming deficient performance, no prejudice shown — contemporaneous plea-colloquy statements undermine post hoc claim he would have insisted on trial	Rejected — no reasonable probability, supported by contemporaneous evidence, that Thompson would have gone to trial
Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely	(Implicit) appeal time defects render appeal untimely	Administrative panel already denied dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; law-of-the-case applies absent clear error	Court proceeds — administrative panel’s denial stands; no clear error or manifest injustice shown

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Thompson, 770 F.3d 689 (8th Cir. 2014) (direct-appeal opinion addressing plea colloquy and Rule 11 arguments)
Williams v. Emp’rs Mut. Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2017) (law-of-the-case doctrine and deference to administrative panel rulings)
Nyffeler Constr., Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor, 760 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2014) (prior administrative decision must have decided the specific jurisdictional issue for law-of-the-case to apply)
United States v. Hernandez, 436 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)
Davis v. United States, 673 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2012) (claims raised and decided on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in § 2255)
Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2003) (same principle barring relitigation)
United States v. Raifsnider, 663 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2011) (government promise that induces plea must be fulfilled; Santobello principle)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (prosecutorial promises underlying a plea must be honored)
United States v. Leach, 562 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2009) (integration clauses and contract principles govern plea agreement interpretation)
Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s plea-colloquy representations carry a strong presumption of verity)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (U.S. 2017) (instructs courts to rely on contemporaneous evidence when assessing whether counsel’s errors induced a plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice test for counsel-induced guilty pleas)
United States v. Regenos, 405 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 2005) (applies Strickland framework to plea negotiation context)