United States v. Wilkins, Criminal No. 2013-0267

Background

Defendant Dustin Wilkins pleaded guilty in June 2014 to one count of wire fraud after a scheme using prepaid debit cards and fraudulent authorization calls; agreed loss was $106,668.29; sentenced to 33 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
Wilkins later filed a § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by his Federal Public Defender Anthony Miles (at plea stage) and by Mark Carroll (post-plea and at sentencing), seeking withdrawal of the plea or resentencing.
Wilkins claimed three principal failures: (1) Miles failed to investigate the charged incidents and the statute of limitations; (2) both Miles and Carroll failed to move to withdraw the guilty plea when Wilkins requested; and (3) Carroll failed at sentencing to press several arguments (including that a prior Henrico County conviction counted as relevant conduct or merited credit).
The Court held a two-day evidentiary hearing, received extensive documentary evidence, credited Miles’ and Carroll’s testimony over Wilkins’ (finding Wilkins not credible), and applied Strickland/Hill ineffective-assistance standards.
The Court found Miles performed reasonably except for not considering the statute-of-limitations issue (deficient performance), but Wilkins showed no prejudice from that omission. The Court found no deficient performance by Miles or Carroll for failing to move to withdraw the plea. At sentencing, Carroll’s choices were reasonable strategic judgments; no Strickland prejudice shown.

Issues

Issue	Wilkins' Argument	Government/Defense Argument	Held
1) Effectiveness of counsel at plea stage (investigation & advice)	Miles failed to investigate victims/losses and did not consider statute of limitations, so plea advice was deficient	Miles reviewed voluminous discovery, discussed evidence with Wilkins, and reasonably advised acceptance; statute-of-limitations issue was arguable	Court: Miles’ investigation and plea advice were reasonable except for failing to consider statute of limitations (deficient) but Wilkins suffered no prejudice so claim fails
2) Failure to move to withdraw plea after plea but before sentencing	Wilkins asked Miles and Carroll to withdraw plea; counsel’s failure prejudiced him	Miles withdrew due to conflict; Carroll says Wilkins never asked; counsel reasonably declined or had no obligation to file	Court: No deficient performance. Miles properly withdrew; Court credited Carroll that no request was made. No prejudice shown
3) Effectiveness at sentencing (failure to raise guideline/mitigation arguments)	Carroll failed to pursue objections (loss/statute issues), argue 5G1.3/5K2.23 or that Henrico conviction was only relevant conduct, and could have more forcefully sought downward departure	Carroll raised mitigation, consulted probation, and made reasonable strategic choices; plea agreement and facts limited some arguments	Court: Carroll’s choices were reasonable strategy; arguments barred by plea or unlikely to succeed; no Strickland prejudice shown
4) Credibility of petitioner’s factual claims about incidents and signature evidence	Wilkins says many charged incidents were not his or overstated; signatures not his; would have gone to trial	Government points to business records, witness IDs, and Wilkins’ inconsistent statements; counsel relied on discovery	Court: Credited government and counsel; Wilkins’ testimony found inconsistent and not credible, undermining claim of prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland test applied to challenges to guilty pleas)
Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (deference to counsel performance and high bar for deficient assistance)
United States v. Mohammed, 693 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (pre-trial investigation standard under Strickland)
In re Sealed Case, 488 F.3d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (consideration of other counts when assessing prejudice from plea)
United States v. Newman, 805 F.3d 1143 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (prejudice standard for counsel’s failure to move to withdraw plea)
United States v. Abney, 812 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (counsel ineffective at sentencing when failing to invoke salient Guidelines provisions)