United States v. Rashaun Parks
995 F.3d 241
| D.C. Cir. | 2021Background
- Parks pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly transporting an individual to engage in prostitution (18 U.S.C. § 2421(a)) and retained appellate rights if the district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence.
- The PSR stated supervised release should be “five years to life,” citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2).
- Parks’s counsel objected to the statutory citation (arguing § 3583(k) applies to minors) but did not object to the PSR’s Guidelines citation § 5D1.2(b)(2).
- The district court, relying on the PSR and its view of the Guidelines, sentenced Parks to 22 months imprisonment and six years supervised release, saying it would have imposed six years regardless of the statutory argument.
- On appeal both parties agreed the PSR had applied the wrong Guidelines provision: the correct provision, U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(c), limited supervised release to five years (reconciling the Guidelines with the statutory minimum).
- The D.C. Circuit held counsel’s failure to object to the incorrect Guidelines provision was deficient and that Parks showed prejudice (a reasonable probability of a different supervised-release outcome), vacated the supervised-release term, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the incorrect Guidelines provision | Counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudiced Parks because the court relied on an erroneous Guidelines range and likely would have imposed five years rather than six | Government conceded deficiency but argued no prejudice because the district court said it would have imposed six years irrespective of the Guidelines error | Court: deficiency conceded; prejudice shown — reasonable probability the court would have imposed the five-year Guidelines term; vacated supervised release and remanded |
| Whether the ineffective-assistance claim can be resolved on the record without remand for evidentiary hearing | Parks: record is conclusive and shows counsel’s omission and resulting prejudice | Government: general practice is remand for an evidentiary hearing on Strickland claims | Court: this is a rare case where the record conclusively shows entitlement to relief; decided claim on the record without remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (applying an incorrect Guidelines range ordinarily establishes prejudice)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (ineffective assistance claims may be raised on direct appeal; remand practice explained)
- United States v. Brown, 892 F.3d 385 (D.C. Cir.) (district courts must adequately justify upward variances)
- United States v. Murray, 897 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir.) (district court must state specific reasons for upward variance beyond Guidelines)
- United States v. Rashad, 331 F.3d 908 (D.C. Cir.) (general practice to remand Strickland claims for evidentiary hearing)
- United States v. Burroughs, 613 F.3d 233 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel)