United States v. Tsai, 1:13-cr-00063

Background

Peter Tsai was indicted on multiple counts including conspiracy to commit health-care fraud (Count One) and illegal importation (Count Three). After three days of trial, he pleaded guilty to Counts One and Three pursuant to a plea agreement.
Tsai was sentenced to 78 months on each count to be served concurrently; the Sixth Circuit affirmed his convictions and sentence on appeal.
Tsai filed a § 2255 motion alleging his guilty plea to Count One was not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Kevin Conners). He asserted numerous deficiencies (failure to retain experts, subpoena patients, interview government witnesses, and poor cross-examination), supported by his affidavit and a medical affidavit.
The Government opposed on the merits and noted Tsai did not challenge counsel’s performance on Count Three and that physical evidence supported the smuggling conviction. The court ordered waiver of attorney-client privilege for relevant communications but no affidavit from Conners was filed.
The Magistrate Judge found an evidentiary hearing would be necessary to evaluate performance but concluded the § 2255 motion could be denied on Strickland prejudice grounds because vacating Count One would not reduce Tsai’s concurrent 78-month sentence tied to Count Three.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tsai's guilty plea to Count One was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Conners’ numerous alleged omissions rendered the plea unknowing and involuntary; Tsai would have insisted on going to trial if counsel had been prepared	Plea was entered after judge’s comments and during trial; Tsai claims counsel told him case was unwinnable and was unprepared	Denied — court found no prejudice under Strickland because vacating Count One would not change concurrent 78‑month sentence tied to Count Three
Whether Tsai showed deficient performance by counsel	Counsel failed to consult experts, subpoena witnesses, and prepare for cross-examination	Government contended Conners had prepared and would submit affidavit; factual disputes require an evidentiary hearing	Court declined to resolve performance (would require lengthy hearing) and resolved case on prejudice instead
Whether an evidentiary hearing is required	Tsai requested a hearing to develop evidence and test affidavits and experts	Government opposed but the court noted evidentiary development would be necessary to decide performance	Court acknowledged hearing would be needed to assess performance but found it unnecessary because lack of prejudice was dispositive
Whether vacating Count One would provide relief	Tsai sought relief from Count One conviction/sentence	Government argued Count Three conviction stands and sentences are concurrent so no sentencing benefit from vacating Count One	Held — no prejudice: concurrent sentence on Count Three means Tsai’s incarceration would be unchanged; § 2255 motion dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland to guilty‑plea context; prejudice requires showing one would have insisted on trial and likely acquittal)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (decision to reject plea must be rational under the circumstances)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (prejudice requires reasonable probability of different outcome; standard for assessing Strickland claims)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (reiterates burden to show prejudice and deficient performance)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (cited on Strickland/ineffective assistance principles)
Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (clarifies standard for assessing prejudice under Strickland)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (addresses deference to counsel's strategic choices under Strickland)
Ramonez v. Berghuis, 490 F.3d 482 (6th Cir.) (performance and prejudice are mixed factual and legal questions)
Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269 (6th Cir.) (same)
Storey v. Vasbinder, 657 F.3d 372 (6th Cir.) (discusses Strickland prejudice standard)
Wong v. Money, 142 F.3d 313 (6th Cir.) (discusses likelihood of different result requirement)
Blackburn v. Foltz, 828 F.2d 1177 (6th Cir.) (cites Strickland likelihood standard)