Michael Faucett v. United States, 872 F.3d 506

Michael Faucett was convicted after pleading guilty to two counts of producing child pornography (photos he took of his five‑year‑old granddaughter) and one count of possessing child pornography; he received a 30‑year sentence.
Investigators found 59 photographs of the granddaughter among a larger collection (600+ images) on Faucett’s computers; Faucett confessed with detailed admissions when confronted.
Medical records showed Faucett had a history of alcoholism and mental‑health treatment; at the time of the offenses his active prescriptions were Adderall and Paxil (not Abilify or Ambien).
About a year after sentencing, the prescribing physician (Dr. Wagoner) pleaded guilty to illegal narcotics distribution; Faucett claimed this meant he was unknowingly intoxicated when he committed the offenses.
Faucett filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel: counsel failed to advise him of an involuntary‑intoxication defense and failed to develop diminished‑capacity mitigation at sentencing.
The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning (1) Faucett offered no facts showing incapacitating intoxication or diminished capacity at the time of the crimes, and (2) counsel reasonably declined meritless strategies.

Issue	Faucett's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise/investigate an involuntary‑intoxication defense	Counsel should have told Faucett the defense existed and he would not have pled guilty if told	No viable factual or legal basis for the defense; counsel not ineffective for forgoing a futile defense	Denied — no viable factual basis for involuntary intoxication; counsel not ineffective
Whether involuntary intoxication is available against child‑pornography charges (general‑ vs specific‑intent)	Implied that intoxication could negate culpability	Court questioned availability but found no need to decide because facts lacking	Not decided on law; court resolved on factual deficiency
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present diminished‑capacity mitigation at sentencing	Counsel should have developed diminished‑capacity argument to reduce sentence	Judge considered alcoholism and mental health; additional argument would be meritless and conflict with acceptance‑of‑responsibility strategy	Denied — counsel reasonably emphasized acceptance of responsibility; mitigation would not have changed sentence
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the § 2255 motion	Faucett requested a hearing to develop intoxication/diminished‑capacity evidence	District court: records and motion show no entitlement to relief; hearing not required	Denied — no hearing required because allegations could not entitle Faucett to relief

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective‑assistance standard)
Webster v. United States, 667 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for § 2255 denials cited)
Martin v. United States, 789 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2015) (district court’s discretion on evidentiary hearings)
United States v. Jumah, 493 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing affirmative defenses from mens‑rea negation)
United States v. Nacotee, 159 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 1998) (intoxication defense requires incapacitation, not mere intoxication)
United States v. F.D.L., 836 F.2d 1113 (8th Cir. 1998) (treating involuntary intoxication like temporary insanity)
United States v. Bindley, 157 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 1998) (distinguishing involuntary from voluntary intoxication)
United States v. Fazzini, 871 F.2d 635 (7th Cir. 1989) (voluntary intoxication relevant only to specific‑intent crimes)
United States v. Palomino‑Coronado, 805 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 2015) (characterizes production of child pornography as specific‑intent for some purposes)