Reese v. United States, 688 F. App'x 92

Reese challenging a 28 U.S.C. §2255 denial for ineffective assistance of counsel after trial for conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
District court denied relief, addressing only prejudice under Strickland, not performance.
On appeal, the Second Circuit previously affirmed the conviction; Reese argues counsel misrepresented plea offers.
The court notes a significant disparity between the plea offer (Guidelines 57–71 months) and the 108-month sentence imposed.
Court remands to develop a more robust record, including possible affidavits from trial counsel; no automatic resentencing is ordered yet.
Remand is to reassess prejudice in light of plea offers and any objective evidence of likelihood Reese would have pled guilty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by focusing only on prejudice.	Reese claims prejudice shown by plea disparity.	State court found no prejudice beyond trial evidence.	Prejudice must be reassessed on remand.
Whether significant sentencing disparity between plea and outcome constitutes objective evidence of prejudice.	Disparity supports a reasonable probability of plea acceptance.	Prejudice not previously addressed; insufficient on record.	Remand to consider disparity as objective evidence.
Whether a remand with possible counsel affidavit is appropriate to develop the record.	Affidavits from counsel needed to credibility determine advocacy.	Record currently lacks sufficient information.	Remand for further proceedings and record development.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard (performance and prejudice))
Flores v. Demskie, 215 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2000) (prejudice through plea evidence framework)
Pham v. United States, 317 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2010) (objective evidence like sentencing disparity needed for prejudice)
Puglisi v. United States, 586 F.3d 209 (2d Cir. 2009) (significant sentencing disparity supports prejudice)