Troy Martin v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9960
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Troy Martin, leader of a Chicago gang, was convicted after trial for large‑scale drug distribution and using phones to facilitate the conspiracy; sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The government introduced 160 wiretap recordings and transcripts; Martin contested leadership of the drug conspiracy at trial.
- Martin filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for giving flawed advice that led him to reject a purported 30‑year plea offer.
- The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding the record contained no evidence—other than Martin’s conclusory assertion—that any 30‑year plea offer was made.
- The district court granted a certificate of appealability solely on whether Martin’s bare claim that he would have accepted a plea, standing alone, required an evidentiary hearing.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Martin failed to make the minimal threshold showing that a plea offer was actually extended, so no hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on an ineffective‑assistance claim about rejecting a plea offer | Martin: his counsel gave prejudicial advice; but for that advice he would have accepted a 30‑year plea | Government/District Court: record contains no evidence a plea offer was made beyond Martin’s conclusory assertion; therefore no hearing required | Court: No hearing required—petition dismissed; petitioner failed to make threshold evidentiary showing that a plea offer existed |
| Whether conclusory assertion that defendant would have accepted a plea, standing alone, suffices to satisfy prejudice or trigger a hearing | Martin: his statement that he would have accepted the offer is enough to proceed to hearing | Government: conclusory statement is insufficient without corroborating detail or documentary evidence | Court: Conclusory assertions are inadequate; petitioner must present some specific, corroborating evidence that an offer was made |
| Standard for ineffective assistance in plea bargaining context | Martin: Strickland applies; counsel’s advice was unreasonable and prejudiced him | Government: Even if Strickland applies, petitioner fails preliminary showing and thus cannot satisfy prejudice or warrant hearing | Court: Strickland governs, but court need not reach merits because of petitioner’s failure to show existence of an offer |
| Burden to show a plea offer existed at preliminary stage of § 2255 review | Martin: minimal proof (his declaration) should suffice to obtain hearing | Government: petitioner must provide specific evidence (agreement copy, dates, counsel affidavit, docket entry, etc.) | Court: Requires some threshold evidence beyond conclusory allegation; petitioner failed that burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court 2007) (sentencing discretion and Guideline disparity context referenced on remand)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Gallo‑Vasquez v. United States, 402 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2005) (petitioner's conclusory assertion of a plea offer insufficient to require evidentiary hearing)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (Supreme Court 2012) (Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance extends to plea bargaining)