United States v. Ernest Chrzaszcz, 671 F. App'x 968

Ernest Chrzaszcz filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition challenging his counsel’s effectiveness during plea negotiations after conviction and sentencing.
The district court denied relief and granted a certificate of appealability (COA) solely on the ineffective-assistance-during-plea-negotiations issue.
Chrzaszcz alleges counsel misadvised him about his likelihood of acquittal and incorrectly told him his sentencing exposure would be ten years if convicted at trial.
The record (emails, phone messages, counsel affidavit) indicates Chrzaszcz was unwilling to accept the government’s plea offers and demanded a lower sentence; he also maintained his innocence through sentencing.
Chrzaszcz requested an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel; the district court denied both requests.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Chrzaszcz failed to satisfy Strickland prejudice and performance prongs and did not warrant expansion of the COA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel ineffective in plea negotiations	Counsel misadvised about likelihood of acquittal and said sentence exposure would be 10 years, so Chrzaszcz would have pled but for advice	Counsel acted within competent range; record shows Chrzaszcz refused offers and demanded lower sentence	Denied—performance not shown deficient and no reasonable probability he would have accepted pleas (Strickland/Lafler)
Evidentiary hearing requested	Chrzaszcz argued disputed facts required hearing	Government said allegations were conclusory and record insufficient to require hearing	Denied—district court did not abuse discretion; allegations were conclusory (Shah standard)
Appointment of counsel for §2255 proceedings	Chrzaszcz asked court to appoint counsel for his habeas case	Government/respondent opposed	Denied—no entitlement shown; standard from Weygandt applies
Expansion of COA to other claims	Chrzaszcz sought appellate review of additional claims	Government argued appellate jurisdiction limited to COA and no substantial showing made	Denied—court declined to expand COA because no substantial showing of constitutional violation

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (prejudice in plea context—reasonable probability defendant would have accepted plea but for counsel’s errors)
Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768 (standard of de novo review for ineffective-assistance claims on appeal)
Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851 (advice must be within range of competence; defendant entitled to reasonably informed decision)
Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156 (conclusory allegations do not warrant evidentiary hearing)
Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952 (standard re: appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings)
Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984 (standard for expanding a COA)
United States v. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (appellate jurisdiction in federal habeas depends on issuance/scope of COA)