Rose v. United States
7:22-cv-10357
S.D.N.Y.May 9, 2024Background
- Terrance Rose and two co-conspirators traveled from South Carolina to New York and committed an armed robbery involving abduction and theft from a marijuana dealer.
- Rose was indicted for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, substantive Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm during the robbery.
- Rose pled guilty to Counts One and Two under a plea agreement, and the government dismissed the firearm count, reducing his potential sentence.
- At the plea hearing, the court meticulously ensured Rose’s competency and voluntary waiver of rights; Rose affirmed understanding the charges, plea agreement, and consequences.
- Rose was sentenced to 120 months—well below the guideline range—after the court considered his mitigating circumstances and his lawyer’s advocacy for leniency.
- Rose moved pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, chiefly alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Rose's Argument | USA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective Assistance: Evidence & Plea | Attorney failed to discuss evidence/explain facts or pressured Rose to plead | Rose knowingly/voluntarily pled guilty, affirmed he understood/evidence was strong | No ineffective assistance; denied |
| Ineffective Assistance: Competency | Attorney should have objected to mental competency to proceed | Court made thorough competency inquiry; no basis to object | No ineffective assistance; denied |
| Ineffective Assistance: Sentencing/Enh. | Attorney failed to object to enhancements or "career offender" status | Enhancements/career offender status stipulated, correct under law; no prejudice | No ineffective assistance; denied |
| Insufficient Evidence | Evidence was inadequate or inadmissible | Rose admitted facts in plea hearing; acknowledged evidence was correct | Claim contradicted; denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (sets standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standard for showing prejudice in plea context)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (counsel's tactical decisions afforded wide latitude)