United States v. Stevens, 813 F. Supp. 2d 758

Stevens pled guilty on Jan. 26, 2009, under a written Plea Agreement to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone, morphine, methadone, and hydrocodone (Count One) and a firearm offense (Count Three).
The Plea Agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal and to file a collateral attack under § 2255.
At sentencing, the court adopted the PSR findings and imposed 211 months total; other charges were dismissed; no notice of appeal was filed.
Stevens later filed a pro se § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, including failures related to the Plea Agreement and a claimed failure to file a notice of appeal upon request.
An evidentiary hearing was held; Hess (attorney) and Conway (paralegal) testified; Stevens did not testify.
The court denied relief, finding Stevens’ § 2255 claims waived by the valid plea and waiver of § 2255 rights, and finding no prejudice from counsel’s representation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stevens’ § 2255 rights were waived	Stevens contends waiver is ineffective due to counsel’s deficient advice.	Waiver and valid guilty plea negate § 2255 claims.	Waiver valid; § 2255 motion denied.
Whether Stevens proved ineffective assistance affecting the validity of the plea	Cronic/Strickland standard shows no prejudice requirement or that counsel’s errors invalidated the plea.	Counsel’s performance did not render the plea invalid or prejudicial; Stevens’ statements during plea colloquy are controlling.	No prejudice established; ineffective-assistance claims fail.
Whether Stevens was denied counsel at a critical stage	Hess/Conway deprived Stevens of effective counsel during plea negotiations and sentencing.	Counsel extensively represented Stevens; no denial of counsel proven.	No denial of counsel found; Cronic not satisfied.
Whether Stevens’ claim about counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal has merit	Stevens instructed counsel to appeal; counsel failed to file.	Record shows no such request or failure; plea waiver forecloses appeal.	Denied; claim rejected as to ineffective assistance and appeal waiver.
Whether ethical/conflict arguments regarding counsel taint the plea	Unethical fee arrangement and potential conflicts compromised representation.	No improper conflict; fixed-fee arrangement and ethics opinions do not show prejudice.	No merit to ethical/conflict claims; no impact on plea validity.

Lemaster v. United States, 403 F.3d 216 (4th Cir.2005) (sworn statements during Rule 11 colloquy are generally binding; waivers foreclose § 2255 challenges contrary to those statements)
United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182 (4th Cir.1992) (an analysis of waiver in light of the defendant’s background and conduct)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (standard for voluntary and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1986) (prejudice prong for guilty-plea—before trial, need to show would have rejected plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (exception to prejudice requirement where counsel's absence during critical stages deprives defendant of counsel)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (prejudice prong can be avoided only in limited circumstances where counsel’s absence prevents meaningful adversarial testing)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (conflict-of-interest prejudice rule; requires showing adverse effect)