United States v. Mohamed
3:18-cr-30001
| C.D. Ill. | Aug 24, 2021Background
- Mohamed was indicted on drug distribution and related conspiracy counts and pled guilty to Count Three (conspiracy) pursuant to a written plea agreement that reserved ineffective-assistance claims but waived other appeals and collateral attacks.
- The PSR produced a Guidelines range of 70–87 months (offense level 27, CH I); Mohamed accepted responsibility reductions and the Government dismissed Counts One and Two as part of the plea deal.
- At sentencing the court imposed a below-Guidelines term of 36 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release; Mohamed did not appeal.
- Mohamed filed a § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on pre-plea conduct (failure to advise, investigate, file motions, or negotiate) and counsel’s alleged failure to file an appeal.
- The Government opposed; Mohamed did not file a reply. The court reviewed Strickland prejudice and deficiency standards and denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Mohamed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to fully inform Mohamed of consequences of pleading guilty | Mohamed fails to allege specific omissions or show he would have gone to trial; no prejudice shown | Counsel did not adequately explain plea consequences, which led to a harsher sentence | Denied — Mohamed did not plead facts showing deficient advice or reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file substantive pretrial motions | No showing any omitted motion would have been meritorious or changed outcome; counsel need not pursue meritless motions | Counsel should have filed suppression/other motions that might have altered outcome | Denied — Mohamed failed to identify any meritorious motion or resulting prejudice |
| Whether counsel failed to investigate or negotiate a better plea | No facts alleged showing an independent investigation or negotiation would have produced a better result | Counsel relied on government discovery and did not investigate, compromising plea bargaining | Denied — Mohamed did not specify what investigation would have produced or how it would have changed the result |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal | Counsel is ineffective if ordered not to appeal; but petitioner must allege he requested an appeal | Mohamed asserts the record does not conclusively show he did not instruct counsel to appeal | Denied — Mohamed did not allege he asked counsel to file an appeal; no factual basis for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard in guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
- Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (failure to file a requested appeal is per se ineffective assistance)
- Brock-Miller v. United States, 887 F.3d 298 (counsel must learn facts, estimate likely sentence, and communicate analysis before a plea)
- Bridges v. United States, 991 F.3d 793 (Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends to plea bargaining)
- Bynum v. Lemmon, 560 F.3d 678 (to show prejudice from failure to file suppression motion, must show probable success and likely acquittal if evidence suppressed)
- Mahffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142 (perfunctory, undeveloped arguments are waived)
- Hicks v. United States, 886 F.3d 648 (no evidentiary hearing required if the record conclusively shows movant is not entitled to relief)