Lazelle Maxwell v. United States, 617 F. App'x 470

Maxwell joined a single drug-distribution conspiracy (crack and heroin) active Jan–May 2008; he was indicted on two conspiracy counts (one for crack, one for heroin), tried in 2009, convicted on both, and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 360 months plus separate special assessments.
Maxwell appealed and later filed a pro se §2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance because trial counsel failed to challenge the indictment as multiplicitous; the district court denied relief but granted a COA on the Strickland/multiplicity issue.
On appeal the government conceded both Strickland prongs: counsel’s failure to raise multiplicity was deficient and Maxwell was prejudiced (one conviction and an extra $100 assessment should be vacated).
The Sixth Circuit accepted the concessions and addressed the appropriate remedy: whether to order a new trial or vacate one count and leave the remaining conviction and sentence intact, or vacate and remand for resentencing.
The panel concluded Maxwell was not entitled to a new trial (no trial prejudice beyond mere multiplicity) but that the sentencing on the remaining count must be revisited because the two sentences formed an interrelated sentencing package.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge multiplicitous conspiracy counts	Maxwell: counsel erred and prejudice resulted	Government (on appeal): conceded counsel was deficient and prejudice occurred	Concession accepted; Strickland satisfied (relief warranted)
Whether Maxwell is entitled to a new trial because jurors heard multiple charges	Maxwell: multiple counts prejudiced jury, warranting retrial	Government: no trial prejudice shown; typical remedy is vacatur of duplicative count	No new trial; vacatur of one multiplicitous conviction is sufficient
Whether vacating one conspiracy conviction requires resentencing on the remaining count	Maxwell: leave original sentence on remaining count intact	Government: sentences formed an interdependent package; remand for resentencing is appropriate	Sentences were interrelated; remand for resentencing ordered
Whether the government is estopped/waived from seeking resentencing after conceding prejudice below	Maxwell: govt. previously conceded prejudice so it cannot now argue for resentencing	Government: its prior concession was narrow and not an intentional waiver of resentencing argument	Waiver/estoppel rejected; government may seek resentencing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (single agreement yields single conspiracy conviction even if multiple crimes contemplated)
Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (vacatur of duplicative convictions typically leaves valid convictions intact)
Pasquarille v. United States, 130 F.3d 1220 (6th Cir.) (sentencing package/interrelated sentences justification for resentencing)
Clements v. United States, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.) (sentencing interdependence warranted resentencing)
Ehle v. United States, 640 F.3d 689 (6th Cir.) (remand for resentencing after vacating a duplicative conviction)
Throneburg v. United States, 921 F.2d 654 (6th Cir.) (new trial required only if multiplicitous counts prejudiced defendant at trial)