Torres-Chavez v. United States, 828 F.3d 582

Torres-Chavez, a member of a Mexican cartel, was convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute, and using a phone to facilitate the conspiracy; sentenced to 168 months.
Government evidence at trial included recorded intercepted calls identifying “Güero,” testimony by cooperating co-conspirators (Lucatero and Ayala‑German), a contract linguist identifying Torres‑Chavez’s voice, and flight records tying him to a relevant departure.
Approximately six months before trial, the government made a plea offer providing a 10‑year sentence (the statutory minimum); Torres‑Chavez alleges his counsel advised him to reject it, saying the government lacked sufficient evidence and that 10 years was unattainable.
Torres‑Chavez filed a § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance for advising rejection of the plea and for not showing him the offer; the district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, treating counsel’s advice as a plausible strategic choice.
The Seventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and held that the record lacks facts about what counsel knew when the plea was offered; because the government’s trial case was strong, the court vacated the denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s advice to reject plea was objectively unreasonable	Counsel told Torres‑Chavez government lacked evidence; this was objectively unreasonable given strength of government’s case	Attorney’s advice was a reasonable strategic assessment, not grossly deficient	Remanded: unresolved; hearing required to determine what counsel knew at time of offer
Whether district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing	Alleged facts (what counsel knew; sentencing advice) if true entitle him to relief and require a hearing	Hearing unnecessary because trial record shows case was not a foregone conclusion and counsel could have reasonably relied on witness credibility issues	Court held denial premature; reversed and remanded for hearing
Whether Torres‑Chavez was prejudiced by rejecting the plea (would have accepted offer)	He would have accepted the 10‑year offer but followed counsel’s advice to refuse	Government argued allegations of prejudice were legally insufficient and reserved the argument below	Prejudice must be resolved at evidentiary hearing on the facts
Whether counsel misadvised about sentencing exposure	Counsel allegedly told him he could not get 10 years, contrary to statutory minimum exposure	Government argued claim was waived or insufficiently pleaded	Court: sentencing‑exposure advice is material and should be explored at hearing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel) (evaluate counsel’s performance from perspective at the time challenged conduct occurred)
Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (insists assessment of counsel’s plea advice must focus on information known when plea was offered)
Almonacid v. United States, 476 F.3d 518 (7th Cir.) (affirmed denial of § 2255 where evidence at trial was weak and no hearing was required)
Osagiede v. United States, 543 F.3d 399 (7th Cir.) (an evidentiary hearing is generally required when the record is insufficient to explain counsel’s actions as tactical)
Julian v. Bartley, 495 F.3d 487 (7th Cir.) (counsel’s advice is deficient where it is a gross mischaracterization of the evidence)
Boulb v. United States, 818 F.3d 334 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearing in § 2255 actions)
Lafuente v. United States, 617 F.3d 944 (7th Cir.) (a § 2255 petitioner alleging facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief is entitled to an evidentiary hearing)