United States v. Gary Vaughn, Jr.
704 F. App'x 207
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Gary Vaughn was indicted on multiple fraud and money-laundering counts; initially represented by Rice, then by Frank Sluzis (Jan 2011).
- In Aug 2011 the Government offered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea that would yield a guaranteed 60-month sentence; Vaughn rejected that offer.
- Vaughn later accepted a non‑binding plea in Nov 2011; at the change-of-plea hearing Vaughn testified he discussed the plea with Sluzis and acknowledged potential statutory maxima; Sluzis stated he had provided Guidelines estimates.
- Presentence Report (PSR) produced a Guidelines range much higher than 60 months; objections reduced the range and the court ultimately sentenced Vaughn to concurrent 72 and 60 months and ordered forfeiture.
- Vaughn filed a §2255 motion alleging Sluzis was ineffective for failing to explain Vaughn’s likely Guidelines exposure for the 60‑month offer; the District Court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding the record corroborated counsel’s affidavit.
- The Third Circuit granted COA on whether an evidentiary hearing was required for the claim that counsel failed to advise about the 60‑month offer; it affirmed rejection of sentencing-enhancement claims and remanded for an evidentiary hearing and prejudice analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Vaughn’s claim that counsel failed to advise him about the 60‑month offer | Sluzis refused to explain trial exposure or Guidelines, so Vaughn lacked information to accept the offer | Sluzis submitted an affidavit stating he provided Guidelines estimates and discussed the offer at length; plea colloquy supports counsel’s account | Remand: District Court erred by denying a hearing because the record contains competing sworn affidavits and does not conclusively resolve facts |
| Whether counsel’s alleged failure to advise was constitutionally deficient (Strickland performance prong) | Lack of any Guidelines estimate or comparative exposure is objectively unreasonable during plea bargaining | Counsel argues he provided estimates and discussed sentencing, so performance was reasonable | Court found Vaughn’s allegations, if true, would show deficient performance; factual dispute requires hearing |
| Whether Vaughn was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient advice (Strickland prejudice prong / Lafler) | Reasonable probability Vaughn would have accepted 60‑month offer, court would have accepted it, and sentence would have been less severe | Government argued record and plea colloquy defeat prejudice showing; District Court did not analyze prejudice because it found no deficiency | Remand to District Court to address prejudice in first instance (reasonable probability of acceptance and court’s acceptance) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to four sentencing enhancements | Vaughn argued objections could have reduced his Guidelines range | Government and District Court argued objections would have been frivolous or were already resolved favorably | Affirmed: enhancements challenge lacks merit; no deficient performance or prejudice on those points |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (Sixth Amendment prejudice standard when ineffective assistance affects plea bargaining)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (right to effective assistance includes plea‑offer communication)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Bui, 795 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2015) (counsel must provide enough information to make an informed plea decision; review for denial of evidentiary hearing)
- Shotts v. Wetzel, 724 F.3d 364 (3d Cir. 2013) (counsel need not give a precise Guidelines number to satisfy advisory duty)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (in‑court plea colloquy statements carry a strong presumption of verity)