Cofield v. United States

Background

Andre Cofield, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to seek relief from a conviction or sentence on specified grounds. He asked the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his 168-month sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He also asked the court to appoint counsel for the § 2255 proceeding.

Cofield had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute narcotics under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. His written plea agreement included a stipulated Guidelines range of 235 to 240 months and stated that he would not directly appeal or collaterally challenge any sentence at or below that range. The agreement detailed the drug quantity attributed to him and included a four-level enhancement for his role in the conspiracy. He was sentenced to 168 months in prison and three years of supervised release. After the appeals court dismissed his appeal of the imprisonment and supervised-release terms and sent the case back concerning a special condition, he was resentenced to the same prison term and supervised release, subject to special conditions.

Request for Appointed Counsel

The court explained that there is no constitutional right to a lawyer in a § 2255 proceeding. A court may appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it, but the petitioner must first show that the claim has substance or a likelihood of success. The court denied Cofield’s request because it concluded that his ineffective-assistance claim could not succeed.

Ineffective-Assistance Claim

To establish ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner must show both that the lawyer’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance probably affected the result.

Cofield argued that his former lawyer failed to object to the drug amount and leadership role at sentencing. He said he would have gone to trial if he had known that his lawyer would not object. The court rejected the claim. It relied on the plea agreement, which expressly identified the drug quantity, leadership enhancement, and stipulated sentencing range. It also relied on Cofield’s statements during the guilty-plea hearing that he had reviewed and understood the indictment and plea agreement, had enough opportunity to discuss the plea with his lawyer, and was satisfied with the lawyer’s assistance. Cofield also acknowledged that the agreement limited his ability to appeal or challenge the conviction or sentence.

The court separately concluded that any challenge to the sentence was barred by the plea agreement’s waiver because the 168-month sentence was below the stipulated range. The court noted that the appeals court had found the waiver valid and enforceable when it dismissed Cofield’s direct appeal.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel and denied the § 2255 petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), it also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees because an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to close the civil case and the specified motions in the related criminal case.