United States v. Michael Giamo
665 F. App'x 154
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael Giamo was convicted by a jury on eight counts related to an arson-for-hire scheme and sentenced to 192 months in prison; two counts carried mandatory consecutive minimums totaling 15 years.
- After his direct appeal failed, Giamo filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging his trial counsel failed to explain a pre-indictment plea offer.
- The Government had offered to drop the count carrying a 5-year mandatory minimum if Giamo proffered fully and pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 844(h), reducing the mandatory minimum from 15 to 10 years.
- Counsel testified he communicated the offer and arranged a proffer; Giamo initially refused to proffer, asked for new counsel, and told the AUSA he would not speak.
- At the § 2255 evidentiary hearing the District Court found Giamo’s testimony not credible and noted Giamo never clearly admitted he would have pled guilty or provided a complete proffer; Giamo asserted he would plead to anything under 20 years but denied participation in arson in his affidavit.
- The District Court denied relief for failure to prove prejudice under Strickland; the Third Circuit affirmed, applying deferential review to factual findings and plenary review to legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to convey/obtain a plea resulted in Strickland prejudice | Giamo: but for counsel’s ineffective assistance he would have proffered, pled guilty to § 844(h), and received a lower sentence | Government: record shows Giamo refused to proffer, denied participation in arson, and never unequivocally would have accepted the offer | Court: No prejudice — Giamo failed to show a reasonable probability he would have proffered, pled guilty, and obtained a lower sentence |
| Whether petitioner proffered that he would accept a plea with a 10-year mandatory minimum | Giamo: he would have accepted a 10-year plea | Government: Giamo never unambiguously accepted a plea that carried at least a 10-year mandatory minimum; he sought <20 years generally | Court: Giamo’s testimony was equivocal; failure to state he would accept a 10-year minimum undermines prejudice showing |
| Whether Giamo could have provided the factual basis required for plea/proffer | Giamo: implied willingness to plead to avoid higher exposure | Government: affidavits and testimony show Giamo denied arson involvement and blamed co-conspirator | Court: Giamo’s statements and affidavit cast doubt on his ability/willingness to provide truthful, complete proffer; no reasonable probability he would have satisfied the condition |
| Standard of review for § 2255 ineffective-assistance determination | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court: plenary review of legal conclusions, clearly erroneous review of factual findings; applied Strickland prejudice standard (reasonable probability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance two-part test)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (Right to counsel applies to plea negotiations)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (Prejudice standard in plea context)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (Clarification of reasonable-probability standard under Strickland)
- Shotts v. Wetzel, 724 F.3d 364 (Third Circuit discussion of plea-prejudice showing)
- United States v. Travillion, 759 F.3d 281 (Standard of review for district court findings on § 2255)