654 F. App'x 11
2d Cir.2016Background
- Randy Washington was convicted after a one-week jury trial in S.D.N.Y. and sentenced principally to 27 years’ imprisonment; he filed a post-trial motion alleging incompetence to engage in plea negotiations and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The district court ordered two psychological evaluations and observed Washington at multiple proceedings; both examiners found him competent to proceed and able to understand plea concepts, though they noted he may have had unrealistic views of the evidence.
- Washington argued he was incompetent to engage in plea negotiations and that counsel was ineffective for failing to show him a draft plea agreement and for not advising him about a possible 7-year sentence and his appellate rights regarding an above-Guidelines sentence.
- The district court denied the post-trial motion and declined to hold evidentiary hearings on competency and on prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance.
- The Second Circuit reviewed competency findings for clear error and review of evidentiary-hearing decisions for abuse of discretion; it reviewed the Strickland components de novo but factual findings for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to engage in plea negotiations | Washington: he was incompetent and could not rationally consult with counsel for plea bargaining | Government: two psychologists and the court’s observations showed competence under Dusky/Godinez standard | Affirmed — no clear error; doctors and court observations supported competence |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing on competency was required | Washington: hearing required because of questions about his mental state | Government: evaluations and judicial observations negated reasonable cause for a hearing | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; §4241 requires a hearing only if reasonable cause exists |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations (failure to show draft plea; advice re possible 7-year sentence and appealability) | Washington: counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudiced him; he would have accepted the plea if properly advised | Government: Washington knew of the ten-year offer and the large sentencing disparity and refused; his post-verdict claim is implausible and lacks objective support | Affirmed — no prejudice shown under Strickland/Lafler; defendant’s testimony alone insufficient; facts suggest he still would have gone to trial |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing on prejudice was required | Washington: hearing would show he would have accepted the plea | Government: claim implausible; no evidence would have aided him | Affirmed — denial of hearing not an abuse of discretion; claim implausible on its face |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard of review and competency hearing guidance)
- United States v. Arenburg, 605 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for competency-hearing decisions)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (competency standard: rational and factual understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1993) (same competency standard applies to pleading guilty)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice standard in plea-bargaining context)
- Raysor v. United States, 647 F.3d 491 (2d Cir. 2011) (post-verdict plea-acceptance assertions require objective support)
- United States v. Gordon, 156 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 1998) (objective evidence of sentencing disparity can support prejudice showing)