United States v. Weeks
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16359
10th Cir.2011Background
- Weeks pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud; sentenced to 1 day shy of a year and fined 51,643.25; he did not appeal directly.
- He later moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on six grounds.
- District court granted an evidentiary hearing on one ground (failure to file a direct appeal) and denied others.
- Appellate panel affirmed the conviction on direct appeal but vacated the § 2255 dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
- Plea colloquy showed substantial discussion of charges; judge and counsel explained elements; Weeks later challenged whether he understood the conspiracy elements.
- On collateral review, the court considered whether counsel’s alleged failures rendered the plea involuntary and warranted an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Weeks’ guilty plea knowing and voluntary? | Weeks argues he did not admit knowing the conspiracy was illegal. | The government contends the plea colloquy complied with Rule 11 and established knowledge. | Conviction affirmed; plea not plainly involuntary. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claim? | Weeks' petition alleged attorney failed to inform about the second superseding indictment and elements, entitling him to relief. | Government argues allegations contradict sworn plea statements and no hearing required. | District court erred in dismissing the § 2255 claim without an evidentiary hearing; remand for evidentiary development. |
| If counsel was ineffective, did Weeks suffer prejudice and have a likely defense at trial? | Lack of notice of critical conspiracy elements and poor counsel could have caused an involuntary plea. | Record shows Weeks acknowledged understanding and voluntariness; any confusion did not prove involuntariness. | If proven at an evidentiary hearing, ineffectiveness could render the plea involuntary; remand for development. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2009) (elements of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371)
- Gigot, 147 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1998) (Rule 11 and knowingness of the charge)
- Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) (notice of all critical elements required for a valid plea)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (voluntariness requires understanding of the law in relation to facts)
- Hicks v. Franklin, 546 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2008) (necessity of explaining depraved mind element depending on complexity)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice in plea bargains requires showing reasonable probability of trial would have occurred)
- Miller v. Champion, 161 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 1998) (presumption of guidance from counsel; attorney must inform client of critical elements)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (indictment receipt as evidence of notice of charge)
- Allen v. Mullin, 368 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2004) (elements of the offense as critical elements; need for notice)