United States v. Roberto Flores, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 132
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Flores, an alien who reentered the U.S. after removal, was charged with firearm and drug offenses arising from armed drug dealing.
- Flores denied applicability of U.S. law and trial court jurisdiction; he went to trial and was convicted on all counts.
- Judge imposed concurrent 96-month sentences on most counts and a 360-month consecutive sentence for a 924(c) offense, totaling 456 months.
- Flores argued his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by conceding cocaine distribution; counsel’s strategy focused on other charges.
- This direct appeal addressed whether counsel's concession could constitute ineffective assistance and whether the lack of an evidentiary record warranted relief.
- Court affirmed the judgment, declining to distinguish Florida v. Nixon and determining that the record on direct appeal is insufficient to remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's concession on some charges is ineffective assistance on direct appeal | Flores argues Nixon bars conceding guilt on any charges. | Flores's appellate counsel emphasizes Cronic-like error on absence of notice as core issue. | Affirmed; Nixon controls the direct-appeal result. |
| Whether lack of a record prevents reviewing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal | Flores asserts the record is insufficient to resolve the issue without an evidentiary hearing. | Flores contends an evidentiary hearing is needed to assess trial counsel's strategy. | Direct review remains appropriate; no remand for evidentiary hearing necessary. |
| Whether presentation of ineffective assistance on direct appeal is prudent given available collateral review | Direct appeal is the proper vehicle, but is imprudent to raise such claims there. | Collateral review under §2255 provides a viable path with a more complete record. | Collateral review is preferred; direct-appeal presentation is imprudent and limited. |
| Whether the court should distinguish Nixon to allow direct-review relief | Flores's record would show trial strategy not forewarned to him, so Nixon should not apply. | Nixon governs and no distinguishing facts are present in the record. | Nixon cannot be distinguished; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (counsel may concede some guilt without ineffective assistance finding)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (plain-error standard requirements and standards)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (plain-error review and consequence for misapplied standards)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (ineffective-assistance claims and collateral review)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error standard framework)