United States v. Griffin

In United States v. Griffin, No. 22-60453 (5th Cir. June 25, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit remanded the case because the district court “should have conducted an evidentiary hearing” on Griffin’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”).

In the district court, Griffin was represented by appointed counsel for a few months, until he retained private counsel. Even so, a year later, Griffin’s retained counsel filed a motion to withdraw based on “irreconcilable differences,” and Griffin was once more represented by the original appointed lawyer.

After receiving a 262-month sentence and having his direct appeal dismissed, see United States v. Griffin, 839 F. App’x 939 (5th Cir. 2021) (unpublished), Griffin filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that both of his prior lawyers had provided IAC.

Griffin alleged three instances of IAC: (1) his retained counsel erroneously advised that Griffin would receive a 78-month sentence if he pled guilty, but he would “definitely get a life sentence” if he lost at trial; (2) appointed counsel calculated a Guidelines range of 120 to 135 months, failing to realize that the career offender Guideline would apply; and (3) appointed counsel failed to seek a minor-role adjustment or variance at the sentencing hearing. Griffin also included a sworn declaration to that effect.

After receiving Griffin’s motion, the district court requested that both prior counsel file their own affidavits. Both disputed certain parts of Griffin’s claims without “expressly contradicting” other portions. The district court ultimately denied Griffin’s motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Holding: Because the two lawyers’ affiadvits failed to “conclusively show” that Griffin was “entitled to no relief,” the district court “abused its discretion in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing.” See United States v. Bartholomew, 974 F.2d 39, 41 (5th Cir. 1992).

“Plea negotiations are a critical phase of litigation,” so there was “no doubt the advice counsel gave Griffin regarding the possible sentences he might receive resulting from a trial versus a plea agreement and the relative likelihood of any such sentence is relevant to Griffin’s IAC claim.” “Taking Griffin’s allegations as true, counsel’s advice arguably tainted the desirability of his plea agreement.”

For those reasons, the Fifth Circuit issued a limited remand for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the advice counsel had given Griffin about the possible sentences after trial versus a plea.