TAIJUIAN HENSON v. UNITED STATES
122 A.3d 899
| D.C. | 2015Background
- Henson was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and related offenses; an early plea offer would have charged him with attempted PWID, waived lab analysis, dismissed greater charges at sentencing, and avoided enhancement papers, but it expired at the first status hearing.
- Henson's original CJA counsel, James Williams, allegedly informed Henson of the offer but (per Henson) failed to explain its advantages or discuss the low likelihood of success on a suppression motion in the context of the plea; Williams and his investigator testified Williams did convey the offer and discussed sentencing risks.
- At the August 2, 2012 status hearing Henson angrily complained about Williams, sought new counsel, and expressed a desire to fight the case rather than plead; the court replaced Williams with PDS counsel.
- After lab testing, Henson’s fingerprints were found on a cocaine cutting plate, strengthening the government’s case; Henson later pled guilty to the indictment on December 19, 2012 (with the government agreeing not to file enhancement papers).
- Henson then moved to withdraw his guilty plea and sought reinstatement of the earlier plea offer, alleging ineffective assistance for failing to properly advise him of and explain the early offer; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, credited Williams’ testimony, and denied the motions for failure to show prejudice under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not adequately advising Henson of the earlier plea offer and its advantages | Henson: Williams failed to explain the plea’s benefits or link suppression motion’s low chance to plea desirability, so Henson would have accepted the plea | Government/Williams: Williams informed Henson of the offer and discussed sentencing tradeoffs; Henson was disinterested in pleading and wanted to proceed to trial | Court credited Williams’ testimony and did not find deficient advice dispositive; failure to prove prejudice was fatal |
| Whether Henson showed prejudice under Strickland (reasonable probability he would have accepted the earlier offer) | Henson: But for counsel’s errors, he likely would have accepted the plea | Government: Record (Henson’s outburst, statements, and lack of interest) shows Henson would not have accepted the offer; fingerprint evidence later made plea less likely to be reoffered | Court held Henson failed to show a reasonable probability he would have accepted the earlier plea; no prejudice shown |
| Whether the trial court legally erred by not considering counsel’s failure to link suppression merits to plea advice | Henson: Court omitted legal consideration that counsel should have explained suppression odds in plea discussion | Government: Trial court credited Williams’ evidence that he discussed suppression in conjunction with plea and sentencing risks | Court found no legal error; credited factual finding that discussion occurred and that Henson was uninterested in pleading |
| Whether withdrawal of plea was "fair and just" under local rule given alleged ineffective assistance | Henson: Withdrawal appropriate because counsel’s ineffectiveness caused loss of superior offer | Government: Even if deficient, no prejudice; court has discretion to deny withdrawal | Court exercised discretion to deny withdrawal after finding no Strickland prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (plea-offer ineffective-assistance framework; defendant must show reasonable probability he would have accepted offer)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (remedies for counsel-induced rejection of plea offers and courts’ remedial discretion)
- Butler v. United States, 836 A.2d 570 (D.C. standard for pre-sentencing plea withdrawal under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32(e))
- Gooding v. United States, 529 A.2d 301 (factors to consider when evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas)
- Bennett v. United States, 726 A.2d 156 (discretionary nature of plea-withdrawal determinations)
- Mercer v. United States, 864 A.2d 110 (appellate standard: accept trial court factual findings if supported; review legal conclusions de novo)
- Benitez v. United States, 60 A.3d 1230 (requirements when a plea is "wired" to co-defendants; need to show co-defendants/government would not have blocked the offer)