Ricardo Bigio v. Florida Department of Corrections, 694 F. App'x 672

Bigio was charged in Florida with first-degree heroin trafficking (168 grams), carrying a 25-year mandatory minimum and a $500,000 fine; other related charges remained.
The prosecutor offered a 15-year plea via defense counsel Casuso; Bigio rejected the offer and proceeded to trial after two colloquies confirming he understood the mandatory minimum exposure.
At trial Bigio was convicted and sentenced to the 25-year mandatory minimum. He pursued postconviction relief arguing counsel was ineffective for not fully explaining the plea’s terms.
Bigio claimed Casuso failed to tell him the 15-year offer was not a mandatory-minimum sentence (making him eligible for release after serving 85%/"gain time"), would have been a lesser-degree felony, and would have involved a $50,000 or waived fine.
At an evidentiary hearing the prosecutor testified he would have waived the mandatory minimum and the fine as part of a plea; Casuso testified he did not discuss gain time or fine specifics with Bigio and that Bigio was intent on going to trial. The magistrate and district court found Casuso credible and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for failing to inform Bigio that the plea would allow early release (gain time/85%)?	Bigio: Casuso told him the plea would be a full served term; had he known about gain time he would have accepted.	State/Casuso: Gain time is discretionary; Casuso reasonably omitted it; Bigio was intent on trial.	No deficiency or no prejudice — counsel’s omission was within reasonable professional judgment and not constitutionally deficient.
Was counsel ineffective for failing to tell Bigio the plea would eliminate or substantially reduce the $500,000 fine?	Bigio: Had he known the fine would be waived/reduced he would have accepted.	State/Casuso: Prosecutor would have waived fine but Bigio remained unwilling to accept plea; no reasonable probability he would have accepted based on fine alone.	No prejudice — even if omission might be deficient, Bigio failed to show a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea on that basis.
Was counsel ineffective for failing to inform Bigio the plea was for a lesser-degree felony?	Bigio: He argued the plea would have been a lower-degree offense.	State: Prosecutor didn’t intend to reduce the charge; plea still required first-degree trafficking.	Claim meritless — record shows no basis that charge would have been reduced.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise regarding particularly severe collateral consequences)
Osley v. United States, 751 F.3d 1214 (no constitutional requirement to advise about every sentencing detail)
Marshall v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 828 F.3d 1277 (ineffective-assistance framework applied to plea-scenario prejudice)
Dell v. United States, 710 F.3d 1267 (no need to reach both Strickland prongs if one fails)
Nejad v. Att’y Gen., 830 F.3d 1280 (standard of review for mixed questions)
United States v. Thomas, 818 F.3d 1230 (clear-error review explained)
United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270 (district court’s permissible view of evidence not clear error)
Finch v. Vaughn, 67 F.3d 909 (counsel ineffective when erroneously assuring client of guarantees plea cannot ensure)