Zachary Love v. United States, 949 F.3d 406

Love was charged with conspiracy to distribute ≥50g methamphetamine and represented by CJA counsel who suspected serious mental-health issues and traumatic brain injury.
Counsel moved for a competency evaluation; Love was evaluated at MCC San Diego for six weeks and a Forensic Report diagnosed PTSD, ADHD, substance abuse, and possible TBI but concluded Love understood the proceedings and was competent.
After the court found Love competent, he pled guilty and received a below-guideline 144-month sentence.
Love filed a pro se § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance: (1) counsel failed to secure a 120‑month plea offer (allowed it to expire while Love was at MCC San Diego) and (2) counsel failed to obtain a second competency evaluation after Love missed medication days.
The district court denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the allegations either contradicted by the record or insufficient to show deficient performance.
Judge Kelly concurred in part and dissented in part: agreed on the second claim but would have remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the plea-offer claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel ineffective for failing to secure a 120‑month plea offer	Love told counsel he wanted to accept; counsel informed him of the offer but allowed it to expire while Love was at MCC San Diego	Counsel reasonably prioritized resolving competency concerns, had told Love about the offer, and could not compel the prosecutor to keep it open	No relief; prejudice shown but performance not objectively unreasonable; affirmed
Counsel ineffective for failing to request a second competency evaluation after missed medication	Love alleges competence depended on medication and counsel should have sought re-evaluation when meds lapsed	Forensic Report did not condition legal competency on a specific medication regimen—only advised re-evaluation if medications changed significantly; proceeding was reasonable	No relief; claim contradicted by the Forensic Report; affirmed
District court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing	Hearing needed to develop facts about why offer expired and what counsel did or could have done	Allegations, accepted as true, would not entitle Love to relief or are contradicted by the record, so no hearing required	No abuse of discretion in declining a hearing; affirmed (Kelly would remand on plea-offer claim)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two‑prong ineffective-assistance test)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland to plea negotiations)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (counsel must communicate plea offers to defendant)
Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (emphasizes high bar for showing counsel unreasonable)
Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238 (prejudice satisfied if acceptance of plea would have reduced sentence)
Davis v. United States, 858 F.3d 529 (standard of review for §2255 ineffective-assistance claims)
Ford v. United States, 917 F.3d 1015 (when §2255 motions can be dismissed without evidentiary hearing)
New v. United States, 652 F.3d 949 (standard for reviewing denial of evidentiary hearing)