955 F.3d 707
8th Cir.2020Background
- Mayfield was indicted on multiple methamphetamine and firearms counts; the government filed a 21 U.S.C. § 851 information alleging a 2002 Arizona conviction that would raise the statutory minimum for the drug counts to 20 years.
- On Feb. 10, 2016 the government offered a plea: plead to drug conspiracy and the firearms charge, dismiss two drug counts, and the government would recommend the low end of the guideline range or the statutory minimum (whichever higher); the offer left final guideline calculations to the court and projected uncertain advisory ranges depending on acceptance-of-responsibility and other factors.
- Mayfield rejected the offer on his counsel’s advice (allegedly because counsel believed the § 851-enhanced 20-year minimum applied), went to trial, and was convicted on all counts.
- At sentencing the government conceded the Arizona conviction did not qualify under § 851; the court calculated an advisory guideline range and sentenced Mayfield to 240 months on the drug counts (concurrent with the firearm sentence). Mayfield asserted at allocution he would have taken a plea but for counsel’s mistaken advice about the 20-year minimum.
- Mayfield filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for misleading plea advice (and other claims). The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and did not resolve the plea-advice ineffectiveness claim; the Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded because the record does not conclusively show the claim is without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was deficient in advising Mayfield to reject the plea by relying on an alleged § 851 20-year minimum | Counsel failed to recognize the Arizona prior did not qualify for § 851 enhancement and advised rejection on that mistaken premise | Counsel negotiated with the government and reasonably advised rejection given the announced § 851 notice and projected ranges | The record lends support to Mayfield; rudimentary public research would have shown the Arizona statute did not authorize imprisonment at the time and counsel’s advice may have been professionally unreasonable → remand for development |
| Whether Mayfield suffered Strickland prejudice (reasonable probability he would have accepted the Feb. 10 plea and received a more favorable outcome) | Mayfield would have accepted the plea had he known § 851 did not apply and would have received a lower sentence | The government emphasizes uncertainty in the projected guideline ranges and acceptance-reduction; no conclusive proof Mayfield would have accepted or that plea would have been accepted by the court | Prejudice is fact-dependent and unresolved on the record; district court must make findings on what likely would have occurred and whether relief is warranted under Lafler → remand |
| Whether the district court properly denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing | A hearing was needed to resolve factual disputes about counsel’s advice and Mayfield’s contemporaneous willingness to accept the plea | The district court concluded the record contradicted Mayfield’s claims and denied relief without a hearing | The court held the record does not conclusively refute the claim; vacated the denial and remanded for further proceedings (including factfinding/hearing as needed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established deficient-performance and prejudice test for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice standard when bad counsel advice causes rejection of a plea)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (right to effective assistance during plea bargaining)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (plea negotiation is a critical stage requiring effective counsel)
- Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263 (counsel’s ignorance of fundamental law plus failure to research can be unreasonable performance)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (duty to consult readily available records in preparing a defense)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (need for contemporaneous evidence to substantiate defendant’s expressed plea preferences)
- Garmon v. Lockhart, 938 F.2d 120 (8th Cir.) (counsel unreasonable where minimal research would have corrected a critical legal misunderstanding)
- Allen v. United States, 854 F.3d 428 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)