United States v. Harron
2:20-cr-00005
| E.D.N.C. | Jun 14, 2024Background
- Timothy Mark Harron and his wife were indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering for defrauding North Carolina’s Medicaid Program.
- Harron’s wife pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in November 2020; Harron followed and pleaded guilty in April 2021.
- Harron was sentenced to 144 months in prison and ordered to pay over $4 million in restitution.
- Harron filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (for alleged misadvice about spousal testimony) and improper sentencing enhancements for charges he was not convicted of.
- The United States moved to dismiss Harron’s petition, arguing both that the legal advice was correct and that Harron suffered no prejudice.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss without a hearing and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective Assistance: Spousal Testimony | Harron claims counsel erred by advising his wife could be compelled to testify against him, affecting plea decision. | Government argues advice was legally correct and, even if not, no prejudice shown. | Court holds advice was accurate (wife could be compelled to testify under plea agreement), and Harron cannot show prejudice. |
| Ineffective Assistance: Sentencing Enhancements | Harron alleges he got enhancements for Felon in Possession of Firearm & RICO, not convicted of. | Government argues record shows no such enhancements applied. | Court finds no evidence of such enhancements in the record or at sentencing; claim rejected. |
| Preclusion by Plea Agreement | Harron argues ineffective assistance claims are not barred by plea agreement. | Government contends plea agreement precludes the § 2255 petition. | Court considers ineffective assistance claim on merits but finds no relief warranted. |
| Procedural Default | Harron claims he learned of his claim’s viability only after direct appeal became unavailable. | Government asserts claims are procedurally defaulted. | Court addresses claims on merits and finds no relief warranted; also did not reach merits due to absence of prejudice/evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard—requires showing of both deficient performance and prejudice)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (adverse spousal testimonial privilege belongs to the testifying spouse and can be waived)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice for ineffective assistance in plea context—would have insisted on trial but for error)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards—claim must be plausible on its face)