Showin Keon Davis v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9175
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Showin K. Davis was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute; the charge carried a mandatory 10-year minimum.
- The government made three plea offers: a cooperation agreement (rejected), a five-year plea (rejected before trial), and on the second day of trial a ten-year plea limiting attributable drug quantity (accepted).
- Davis pled guilty to the ten-year-count and was sentenced to 120 months. He later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by his appointed attorney, Daniel Hopper.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, rejected claims that defense counsel failed to review discovery or file pretrial motions, but found counsel ineffective for failing to communicate conspiracy law and the risks/benefits of plea offers in a manner Davis could comprehend and for misadvising him about safety-valve eligibility. The court vacated the conviction and ordered the government to reoffer the five-year deal.
- The government appealed. The Eighth Circuit reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, and reversed in part, concluding the district court clearly erred on the mental‑health/competency and communication findings and misapplied the proper prejudice inquiry concerning safety‑valve advice. The case was remanded for a focused determination whether Davis was prejudiced by counsel’s safety‑valve advice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (United States/Hopper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to explain conspiracy law so Davis could comprehend it | Hopper didn’t communicate the law of conspiracy effectively given Davis’s mental conditions, causing a deficient performance | Hopper spent extensive time with Davis, repeatedly explained conspiracy law, and Davis was competent and resistant to advice, not unable to understand | Circuit court: District court clearly erred; counsel was not ineffective on this basis |
| Whether counsel was ineffective in explaining risks/benefits of plea offers (including communication style) | Hopper’s telephone‑heavy, soft‑spoken style failed to convey plea risks/benefits to a client with attention/learning issues | Communication was adequate: >27 hours of consultation, multiple in‑person meetings, and the court found Davis competent at plea | Circuit court: District court erred; communication style alone insufficient to show ineffective assistance |
| Whether counsel misadvised Davis about safety‑valve eligibility under § 3553(f) | Hopper told Davis he could qualify for the safety valve despite criminal history, inducing plea to the ten‑year deal | Hopper misunderstood safety‑valve law at plea, but safety‑valve advice was not shown to have affected rejection of the earlier five‑year offer | Circuit court: Hopper misstated safety‑valve law and may have been deficient; district court must determine whether Davis was prejudiced by that advice (remand) |
| Proper remedy if counsel was ineffective regarding safety‑valve advice | Reoffer the five‑year plea and vacate conviction | Any remedy must match actual prejudice; if prejudice shown Davis may withdraw plea and go to trial — reoffering the five‑year deal was not necessarily proper | Circuit court: Remand to decide prejudice; if prejudiced allow withdrawal of plea and trial, if not, dismiss § 2255 motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice in plea context requires showing defendant would have accepted a different course but for counsel’s errors)
- United States v. Regenos, 405 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing § 2255 ineffective assistance claims)
- Hamberg v. United States, 675 F.3d 1170 (8th Cir. 2012) (deference in evaluating counsel performance)
- United States v. Taylor, 258 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2001) (strong presumption counsel’s conduct falls within reasonable professional assistance)
- DeRoo v. United States, 223 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2000) (defendant bears heavy burden to show counsel’s explanation of law was deficient)
- United States v. Langmade, 236 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2001) (overrepresentation cannot delete criminal history points for safety‑valve purposes)
- United States v. Norvell, 729 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2013) (to show prejudice, defendant must show he would have accepted plea but for counsel’s advice)
- Lindhorst v. United States, 658 F.2d 598 (8th Cir. 1981) (failure to explain in greater detail not necessarily ineffective assistance)
- Shafer v. Bowersox, 329 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2003) (competency inquiry: ability to understand proceedings)