Mario Gordon v. State of Maine, 308 A.3d 228

Mario Gordon was charged with multiple counts of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs and other related offenses in 2018.
The State offered plea deals: eight years straight or a twelve-year sentencing cap, with Gordon able to argue for a split sentence only under the cap.
Gordon’s attorney advised him to take the twelve-year cap, expressing (without guarantee) that the sentence would likely be less than the cap based on the judge’s comments at a dispositional conference.
Gordon pleaded guilty, understanding via the plea colloquy that a twelve-year sentence was possible.
Ultimately, the court imposed a twelve-year unsuspended (straight) sentence, and Gordon’s later petitions and appeals centered on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The post-conviction court denied relief, finding no ineffective assistance; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance: plea advice	Attorney’s incorrect advice induced plea	Advice was strategic; twelve years was possible	Not deficient; within reasonable professional norm
Ineffective assistance: failure to object at sentencing	Counsel should have moved to withdraw Gordon’s plea	No legal basis for objection; plea was knowing	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown
Plea involuntariness based on expectations	Plea was not knowing/voluntary; induced by judge/attorney	Gordon knew twelve years was possible at plea colloquy	Plea was voluntary and knowing, per record

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Hewey, 622 A.2d 1151 (outline of sentencing procedure in Maine)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (objectively wrong plea advice as basis for relief)
Ford v. State, 205 A.3d 896 (Maine’s application of Strickland standard)
McGowan v. State, 894 A.2d 493 (right to effective counsel under U.S. and Maine Constitutions)