United States v. Xavier Levar Smith, 983 F.3d 1213

June 2018 search of Smith’s apartment recovered a stolen semi-automatic handgun, drugs, and forensic evidence linking Smith; Florida charged him with drug offenses and being a felon in possession.
The state prosecutor (also a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney) offered plea deals to resolve the state case and avoid federal prosecution—initially 3 years, then a 5-year offer memorialized in two October 2018 emails warning that federal indictment could trigger a 15-year ACCA mandatory minimum.
Smith’s state public defender, Perry Thurston, gave Smith the prosecutor’s emails, discussed the risk of federal charges, and advised acceptance; Smith rejected the offer, insisted the prosecutor was “bluffing,” and told Thurston to prepare for trial.
A federal grand jury indicted Smith on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); federal counsel moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing state counsel rendered ineffective assistance during plea negotiations.
After an evidentiary hearing the magistrate and district court credited Thurston’s testimony, found he communicated the offer and risks, ruled Smith was not prejudiced (and that Thurston’s performance was not deficient), denied the motion, and Smith pled guilty.
At sentencing the PSR treated three prior Florida sale-of-cocaine convictions as ACCA “serious drug offenses,” yielding a mandatory 180-month sentence; Smith challenged both the ineffective-assistance ruling and the ACCA classification on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment should be dismissed because Smith’s state counsel was ineffective during state plea negotiations	Thurston failed to advise Smith about federal sentencing exposure/ACCA and did not verify the prosecutor’s representations, causing Smith to reject the state plea; Smith would have accepted the offer with proper advice	Government: Sixth Amendment counsel right had not attached to state plea negotiations; alternatively Thurston’s performance was reasonable and Smith suffered no prejudice because he never intended to accept the offer	District court’s factual findings credited Thurston: the offer and ACCA risk were communicated, Thurston’s performance was not constitutionally deficient, and Smith failed to show prejudice because he adamantly refused the plea; motion denied, ruling affirmed
Whether Smith’s prior Florida convictions qualify as ACCA “serious drug offenses”	Smith: Fla. Stat. § 893.13 lacks a mens rea element, so it does not categorically qualify as a serious drug offense under the ACCA	Government: Eleventh Circuit precedent and Supreme Court law require examining whether the state offense necessarily involves the conduct described by ACCA; Florida sale-of-cocaine fits that definition	Court held prior Florida sale-of-cocaine convictions qualify as ACCA serious drug offenses; Smith’s mens rea argument is foreclosed by binding precedent and Shular; sentence affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (counsel must communicate formal plea offers)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice test for rejected plea bargains)
United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (Eleventh Circuit precedent holding Fla. sale-of-cocaine qualifies as an ACCA serious drug offense)
Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (Supreme Court: ACCA serious-drug-offense inquiry looks to whether the state offense necessarily involves the conduct specified by the ACCA)
Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for counsel’s performance)