United States v. Hardy, 263 F. Supp. 3d 244

Defendant Edward Hardy pled guilty to a D.C. Code felon-in-possession charge pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement calling for an 8-year sentence; the federal felon-in-possession count was dismissed at sentencing.
In the plea proffer Hardy admitted three prior felony convictions (two drug offenses and one armed robbery) that would have qualified him for the ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimum if convicted federally under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
The plea was driven by the risk of the ACCA mandatory minimum; the D.C. Code offense carried a lower statutory maximum and a much lower advisory guideline range.
After Hardy’s conviction became final, the Supreme Court in Johnson invalidated ACCA’s residual clause; Welch made Johnson retroactive on collateral review.
Hardy filed a pro se § 2255 motion arguing his plea was involuntary because (1) the ACCA-based threat was no longer valid under Johnson/Welch, and (2) his counsel was ineffective for advising acceptance of the plea.
The court denied the § 2255 motion without a hearing, concluding Hardy’s plea and counsel’s advice were reasonable under the law as it existed when the plea was entered and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hardy’s plea was involuntary because Johnson later voided the ACCA residual clause	Hardy: Plea was induced by threat of ACCA 15-year minimum; Johnson means that threat was invalid, so plea was involuntary	Government: At plea time the residual clause was valid; a plea voluntary under then-applicable law remains valid despite later changes	Court: Plea was voluntary and intelligent under the law at the time; Brady controls, so claim fails
Whether counsel was ineffective in advising Hardy to accept the plea	Hardy: Counsel should not have recommended plea given ACCA challenge (post-hoc)	Government: Counsel’s advice was reasonable because ACCA residual clause was valid and Johnson was unforeseeable	Court: Under Strickland, performance was not deficient; counsel need not predict Johnson
Whether Hardy is entitled to collateral relief under § 2255 based on Johnson/Welch	Hardy: Johnson/Welch undermine the legal premise of the plea and justify vacatur	Government: Hardy was never sentenced under ACCA; plea agreement and sentence stand	Court: No relief; collateral relief denied
Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue	Hardy: Issues raise constitutional questions warranting appeal	Government: Issues are not debatable among reasonable jurists	Court: COA denied; Hardy failed to make the substantial showing required by § 2253(c)(2)

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (Johnson made retroactive on collateral review)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (a plea voluntary and intelligent under then-applicable law remains valid despite later decisions)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standard for challenging plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
United States v. McCoy, 215 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (discussing voluntariness and intelligence of guilty pleas)
United States v. Redrick, 841 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (noting Johnson was unforeseeable)
United States v. Tolson, 372 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005) (applying Strickland in plea context)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for certificate of appealability)
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) (COA standard guidance)