Graham v. United States

Background

A jury found Clydedoro Graham guilty of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, attempted sex trafficking, and kidnapping on November 5, 2015. On October 27, 2016, the court sentenced him to 270 months of imprisonment followed by supervised release.

Graham filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a person in custody to challenge a conviction or sentence in limited circumstances. He claimed that his lawyer, Samuel Braverman, provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Graham alleged that counsel failed to explain the government’s evidence, failed to advise him about the sentencing guidelines and his role in the offense, and failed to discuss or plan a trial strategy. He also alleged that, with proper advice, he would have insisted on seeking a plea agreement and might have pleaded guilty.

Legal standard

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel from Strickland v. Washington. Graham had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. The court emphasized that counsel’s conduct receives strong judicial deference and that a defendant must overcome the presumption that counsel acted within the broad range of reasonable professional assistance.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Graham did not establish deficient performance. According to Braverman’s sworn affirmation and billing records, he began discussing the case with Graham when he was appointed on May 13, 2015. They discussed at least two potential plea offers and two sentencing-guideline ranges, which Graham rejected. They also discussed the evidence, rules of evidence, discovery, motion practice, trial strategy, and trial submissions during multiple meetings.

The court also rejected Graham’s claim that counsel failed to pursue a plea agreement. The record showed that counsel conveyed informal discussions, a written plea offer, and a later more favorable offer. Counsel also conveyed counteroffers from Graham, which the government rejected. At a final pretrial conference, counsel stated that he had explained the plea agreement’s important terms, including sentencing consequences and other requirements. Graham confirmed in court that counsel had advised him about the offer and the potential sentencing exposure after trial, and he confirmed that he wanted to reject the offer and proceed to trial.

The court concluded that Graham’s allegations were contradicted by his sworn statements and counsel’s sworn affirmation. It also found that his assertions about inadequate preparation were conclusory and unsupported. Because Graham failed to show deficient performance or prejudice, the court held that he was not entitled to relief.

Disposition

Judge Roman denied Graham’s motion under § 2255 to vacate his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, mail the order to Graham as a self-represented petitioner, and record service on the docket.