United States v. Martez Smith, 989 F.3d 575

Background

Confidential source reported purchases of methamphetamine from Martez Smith; law enforcement conducted controlled buys on July 9 and July 27, 2018.
On July 27 agents arranged another buy; Smith was observed driving suspiciously and stopped by a patrol officer for extremely dark window tint; during a short stop the officer discovered marijuana, a grinder, and a 9mm pistol with an extended magazine.
A federal grand jury indicted Smith for distribution of 50+ grams of methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm; after lab results showed less than 50 grams, Smith pleaded guilty to distribution between 5–50 grams and to the §922(g) count.
After pleading guilty, Smith moved to withdraw his pleas alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move to suppress, pressure to plead, counsel unfamiliarity) and requested an evidentiary hearing; the district court denied withdrawal and a hearing.
The PSR sought a career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 based on a 2009 federal conspiracy (21 U.S.C. §846) and a 2013 attempted armed robbery; the district court applied the enhancement (citing Adams) and sentenced Smith; the Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith may withdraw his plea for ineffective assistance based on failure to file a suppression motion	Maliza failed to investigate/file to suppress the firearm; search lacked consent or warrant	Officers had probable cause under the automobile exception and collective-knowledge doctrine; suppression unlikely so no prejudice	Denied — probable cause supported stop/search; suppression unlikely; no Strickland/Hill prejudice shown
Whether counsel pressured Smith into pleading	Maliza rushed Smith and threatened a superseding indictment to force a plea	Smith affirmed under oath he had sufficient time, was satisfied with counsel, and was offered adjournment; record shows no coercion	Denied — sworn Rule 11 colloquy and record undermine coercion claim; no reasonable probability he would have gone to trial
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the withdrawal motion	Smith requested a hearing to develop IAC claims	Allegations were largely conclusory; suppression claim lacked merit on the record so no hearing necessary	Denied — district court did not abuse discretion in refusing a hearing
Whether a §846 narcotics conspiracy conviction is a predicate "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. §4B1.2 for career-offender purposes	§4B1.2's text excludes inchoate offenses; §846 lacks an overt-act element and is broader than generic conspiracy	Application Note 1 to §4B1.2 is authoritative and explicitly includes conspiracy; Adams and related precedent support including §846 under the categorical approach	Held — §846 conspiracy qualifies as a controlled-substance predicate; career-offender enhancement properly applied

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient-performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland in guilty-plea context; prejudice measured by likelihood defendant would have gone to trial)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (courts should give weight to sworn plea-colloquy statements when evaluating withdrawal claims)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (gives controlling weight to sentencing-guidelines application notes unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent)
United States v. Adams, 934 F.3d 720 (7th Cir.) (holds §4B1.2's commentary includes inchoate offenses for guideline enhancements)
United States v. Raupp, 677 F.3d 756 (7th Cir.) (defers to §4B1.2 application note when interpreting guideline terms)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (automobile-search principles and limits on vehicle searches without a warrant)
United States v. Tabb, 949 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (concludes §846 narcotics conspiracy fits within application-note definition of conspiracy)
United States v. Winstead, 890 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir.) (contrasting authority that viewed application note as improperly expanding §4B1.2)