832 F.3d 252
5th Cir.2016Background
- Scribner was convicted of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute 50+ marijuana plants and sentenced to 210 months after a jury trial; he had rejected a government plea offer.
- His Federal Public Defender misadvised him about Guidelines exposure, failing to recognize application of the Career Offender Guideline (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1), which dramatically increased his guideline range.
- Scribner filed a § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance: counsel’s failure to advise him of the Career Offender enhancement caused him to reject the plea he otherwise would have taken.
- A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing, found Scribner’s testimony credible, and recommended vacatur under Strickland/Lafler: counsel’s performance was deficient and Scribner showed prejudice (would have pled, court would have accepted plea, sentence would have been lower).
- The district court adopted most magistrate findings but disagreed as to prejudice’s second and third Lafler factors, concluding Scribner’s continued insistence on innocence made acceptance by the sentencing court and an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction unlikely.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court implicitly rejected the magistrate judge’s credibility findings (made after live testimony) without holding its own evidentiary hearing, requiring either acceptance of the magistrate’s credibility findings or a new hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to advise of Career Offender enhancement was deficient under Strickland | Counsel misadvised Scribner about guideline exposure; this was constitutionally deficient | Government conceded likely deficient performance | Agreed deficiency existed (not disputed) |
| Whether Scribner was prejudiced because he would have accepted the plea (Lafler prong 1) | Scribner testified he would have pled guilty if properly advised; magistrate found him credible | Government pointed to Scribner’s prior insistence on innocence to dispute likelihood of pleading | Magistrate found credibility and that Scribner would have accepted plea; district court did not disturb this credibility finding for this factor |
| Whether the sentencing court would have accepted the plea (Lafler prong 2) | Scribner argued court would have accepted plea (co-defendants pleaded and court had accepted their pleas) | District court found Scribner would not have admitted factual basis and thus plea acceptance was unlikely due to his asserted innocence | Fifth Circuit held district court implicitly rejected magistrate credibility findings on this point and remanded for acceptance of those findings or a new hearing |
| Whether Scribner would have received a lesser sentence (Lafler prong 3) | If Scribner pled guilty he could have obtained acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and lower guideline range | District court found Scribner’s lack of genuine acceptance of guilt made a reduction unlikely | Fifth Circuit found district court’s contrary inferences conflicted with magistrate’s credibility findings and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (requirements to show prejudice where bad advice affected plea decision)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise re: deportation risk and plea consequences; plea negotiation is critical stage)
- Louis v. Blackburn, 630 F.2d 1105 (district judge must personally hear testimony before rejecting magistrate credibility findings)
- McInerney v. Pluckett, 919 F.2d 350 (deference to credibility findings from live testimony but district court may not contradict without hearing)