Isaiah Hicks v. United States
886 F.3d 648
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Isaiah Hicks led a drug-distribution organization and was convicted by a jury of, among other counts, conspiracy to distribute over 50 grams of crack; he received a 360-month sentence after a downward variance from a life-guideline recommendation.
- The presentence report calculated a base offense level of 46 (life guideline); the district judge remarked the level was "probably" 45 but did not adopt any different calculation.
- Hicks filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance: counsel failed to explain conspiracy law, understated the evidence, and did not sufficiently advise about pleading guilty versus going to trial; Hicks said he would have entered a blind (no-agreement) guilty plea.
- Hicks’ theory of prejudice: a blind plea would likely have earned a § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction (two or three points), lowering his offense level (to 42 under his theory) and producing a guideline range that might have prompted a sentence below 360 months.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning Hicks presented only speculative possibilities (no plea offer, no evidence he would have qualified for acceptance points, and even with reductions the guideline recommendation likely remained life). The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hicks's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s alleged failure to advise about pleading guilty entitled Hicks to an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance | Counsel failed to explain conspiracy exposure and benefits of a blind plea; Hicks would have pleaded guilty | Hicks cannot show prejudice: no plea offer, no proof he would get acceptance points, guideline would still recommend life | Denied — no hearing required; prejudice too speculative |
| Whether a blind guilty plea would likely have produced a § 3E1.1 three-point reduction | A blind plea would have resulted in a 3-point reduction and lowered guideline/range | No evidence Hicks would meet acceptance criteria or obtain government motion for third point | Denied — speculative; acceptance and gov’t motion not assured |
| Whether any potential offense-level reduction would have meaningfully altered the guideline range/sentence | Reduced level could have moved range below life and yielded shorter sentence | Presentence report shows level 46; even 3-point reduction would still yield life guideline; judge’s sentencing rationale would likely remain unchanged | Denied — factual record shows no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether the district judge’s stray remark that the level was "probably 45" undermines denial of relief | The judge’s statement shows possible error and creates reasonable probability of different result | The remark was a slip; PSR controlled (level 46); remark was immaterial to sentence choice | Denied — slip does not create prejudice or entitlement to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance two-part test)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (counsel must communicate plea offers and reasonable probability standard for prejudice)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (guideline calculation errors can be prejudicial when they affect sentencing ranges)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing courts must consider Guidelines as a starting point but may vary)
- George v. Smith, 586 F.3d 479 (speculation based on hindsight insufficient to prove ineffective assistance)
- United States v. Nurek, 578 F.3d 618 (government’s § 3E1.1(b) motion discretion; third point requires government motion)