Sararo v. United States, 2:15-cv-00714

Background

Alfredo J. Sararo was investigated by the IRS/FBI (proffered in 2007) and indicted in 2011 for tax offenses; a superseding indictment later added wire fraud counts. He was convicted after a 2012 jury trial and sentenced to 108 months (concurrent counts) plus restitution; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed and certiorari was denied.
Sararo retained Robert Rosenblatt (longtime criminal practitioner) in 2007; Rosenblatt accompanied him to the proffer and represented him through indictment, plea negotiations, trial, and appeal.
The government made an early plea proposal (verbal April 7, 2011; written May 3, 2011) offering a guilty plea to one tax count with a government recommendation of three years’ imprisonment and related financial penalties; Sararo rejected the offer and the government later superseded the indictment.
Sararo filed a § 2255 motion asserting (1) Rosenblatt failed to communicate essential plea terms and misadvised him about Guidelines and trial prospects, and (2) Rosenblatt had a financial conflict of interest and encouraged rejection of the plea to earn more fees.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing, heard both Rosenblatt and Sararo, found Rosenblatt credible on material points, rejected Sararo’s credibility on key issues (including his claim he would have accepted the plea), and denied the § 2255 motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel operated under an actual financial conflict that affected performance	Rosenblatt encouraged rejection of the plea to prolong the case and increase fees	Rosenblatt denied any financial-motivation; fees were reasonable and some unpaid expert fees were paid by Rosenblatt	No actual conflict shown; court credited Rosenblatt and found no adverse effect on representation
Whether counsel failed to communicate essential plea terms and misadvised about sentence/GUIDELINES	Rosenblatt did not provide written offer, omitted material terms (fines, supervised release), misrepresented likely sentence (said 3 years applied whether pleading or going to trial; promised probation/house arrest)	Rosenblatt testified he fully communicated both the verbal and written offers, explained Guidelines, warned that rejecting could lead to superseding wire-fraud charges and greater penalties, and never promised probation/house arrest or identical sentence at trial	Court found Rosenblatt’s testimony credible, that he communicated essential terms and accurately advised Sararo; ineffective-assistance claim denied
Prejudice: Would Sararo have accepted the plea and obtained a lesser sentence but for counsel’s conduct?	Sararo testified he would have accepted the plea if he had seen/understood its terms	Rosenblatt and record show Sararo consistently insisted on innocence and refused to plead guilty; he never authorized misdemeanor plea; his trial posture and statements indicate he would not have accepted	Court found no reasonable probability Sararo would have accepted the plea; no prejudice shown; § 2255 relief denied

Key Cases Cited

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (standard for prejudice when counsel’s deficient advice leads to rejection of plea offer)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel’s Sixth Amendment duties extend to advice about consequences of plea)
Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263 (2014) (application of Strickland principles)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (actual conflict of interest and adverse-effect requirement)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (definition and proof of an "actual conflict")
United States v. Williams, 902 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2018) (treats conflict-of-interest and prejudice standards in plea/ineffective-assistance context)