Articles Tagged with iac

On 20 March 2012, NMCCA decided United States v. Jones; and in doing so they have answered a question that was not unexpected, but took a little while to come.

In United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006), CAAF decided prospectively that defense counsel must advise a client about the DoD sexual offender registration requirements when negotiating a PTA.

The question is how detailed must the advice be and what about additional state law requirements.  There any number of offenses not listed in the current version of DODI 1325.7 where states now require registration.

Thanks to Sentencing Law & Policy here is a paper that raises some thoughts on IAC for pretrial advice to clients.  As we know we won’t get anything solid on that from CAAF a la immigration because Denedo’s case is over.  But, . . . .

Post Padilla: Padilla’s Puzzles for Review in State and Federal Courts

Vanderbilt Law Research Paper Series
Vanderbilt University Law School
Nancy J. King
Vanderbilt Law School
Gray Proctor
affiliation not provided to SSRN
Federal Sentencing Reporter, Volume 23, Issue 3 (Feb 2011)

In United States v. Darling, ACCA affirmed because appellant could not establish the prejudice prong of an IAC “claim.”  This is worth reading for those cases where the accused is found not guilty after a contested case, but during sentencing there is a concession that the accused was actually guilty.  For the defense counsel this case addresses the issues of how to do sentencing and try to get a lower sentence.

Appellate defense counsel initially raised one assignment of error to this court – that appellant’s conviction for uttering checks with intent to defraud was legally and factually insufficient. Upon our initial review, we specified the following issues:

I.

On Wednesday, ACCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Vargaspuentas, No. ARMY 20091096, on these three interesting issues:

I.  WHETHER APPELLANT’S TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL INFORMED HIM HIS GUILTY PLEA MIGHT RESULT IN DEPORTATION.

II.  WHETHER COUNSEL’S ADVICE REGARDING DEPORTATION WAS INEFFECTIVE. SEE PADILLA V. KENTUCKY, 08-651 (2010); STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); HILL V. LOCKHART, 474 U.S. 52 (1985).

SCOTUSBlog has the 3 June 2010 petitions to watch at SCOTUS.  Here is an interesting one.

Title: Jones v. Williams
Docket: 09-948
Issue: Whether the Tenth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations to a defendant who was later convicted and sentenced in a fair trial, on the ground that the remedy the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals gave to the defendant was constitutionally inadequate, given that the Supreme Court has not clearly established what remedy, if any, is appropriate for ineffective assistance of counsel in such a case.

The relevant “facts.” image

NMCCA has issued six new decisions, of which four are merits.

United States v. Maharrey, post-trial delay case.

United States v. Thornton.  Appellant raises ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and sufficiency of the evidence.  The findings and sentence are set-aside based on the IAC.  The IAC relates to several issues:  failure to properly advise on forum; failure to prepare appellant to testify; failure to cross-examine some witnesses.  A DuBay (United States v. DuBay, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1986)) hearing was ordered.  The military judge found several issues of IAC.  The DuBay judge did not agree with all the allegations of IAC.