894 F.3d 351
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Carlos Aguiar convicted by jury of RICO and armed-bank-robbery–related charges, including two § 924(c) convictions; sentenced to 60 years (including consecutive mandatory terms) and restitution.
- Aguiar rejected a government plea that would have covered one § 924(c) count with a likely total sentence of ~47–51 years (30-year mandatory on the § 924(c) count); the plea stated the government would not file additional § 924(c) counts if accepted.
- At trial voir dire, Aguiar’s family members were temporarily kept out of the courtroom by court security; defense counsel did not object; the district court did not perform Waller findings.
- Aguiar filed a § 2255 motion alleging (1) counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the voir dire closure (public-trial right) and (2) counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him that rejecting the plea could lead to additional § 924(c) counts and much greater mandatory consecutive sentences.
- District court denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing; on appeal the D.C. Circuit affirmed denial as to voir dire closure but reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the plea-advice claim because the record was inconclusive about what advice counsel gave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to object to closure of voir dire violated Sixth Amendment | Aguiar: counsel’s failure to object deprived him of public trial rights and was prejudicial | Gov't: closure was trivial, caused by court officers, no Waller-worthy concern, and no prejudice shown | Affirmed: under Weaver, Aguiar failed to show Strickland prejudice or that closure made trial fundamentally unfair |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not advising sentencing consequences of rejecting plea (multiple § 924(c) counts) | Aguiar: counsel should have warned that rejecting plea could lead to additional § 924(c) counts and dramatically higher mandatory consecutive sentences; he would have accepted plea if advised | Gov't: records show some warnings about added incidents; Aguiar didn’t prove he would have accepted plea; district court properly denied without hearing | Reversed and remanded: record inconclusive under Padilla; district court abused discretion by denying evidentiary hearing on this Strickland/Lafler claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (prejudice standard in plea-offer context: reasonable probability defendant would have accepted plea)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise on clear, severe collateral consequences of plea)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (public-trial violation in collateral ineffective-assistance claim requires proof of Strickland prejudice or that closure rendered trial fundamentally unfair)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (contemporaneous evidence preferred to establish that defendant would have accepted plea)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (requirements for closing public voir dire)