Rose v. United States

Background

Terrance Rose, representing himself, sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a prisoner to challenge a sentence. He asked the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.

Rose had been charged with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act robbery, committing Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. Under a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to the conspiracy and robbery counts. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss the firearm count, which carried a mandatory minimum seven-year prison term consecutive to any other sentence.

The plea agreement included sentencing calculations and a stipulation that Rose qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. The agreed advisory guideline range was 151 to 188 months. On February 22, 2022, the court imposed a 120-month prison sentence, which was below that range and also below the range that would have applied without the career-offender designation.

Rose’s claims

Rose argued that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by:

- failing to discuss exculpatory or inadmissible evidence with him or explain the case; - pressuring him to plead guilty to an agreement he did not understand; - failing to challenge his mental competence to proceed; - failing to object to sentencing enhancements or otherwise seek a more favorable sentence; and - failing to object to the career-offender finding.

Rose also argued that the evidence of his guilt was insufficient or inadmissible.

Ineffective assistance of counsel

The court applied the two-part standard from Strickland v. Washington. Under that standard, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the defendant was prejudiced—that is, that the alleged errors probably affected the result.

The court rejected Rose’s claims concerning his plea. During the plea hearing, Rose testified under oath that he had discussed the charges, possible defenses, and consequences of pleading guilty with his lawyer. He said he understood the plea agreement, had discussed every part of it before signing, and was not threatened, forced, or coerced. He also said that no one promised him a particular sentence.

Rose confirmed that the government’s description of the evidence was substantially correct. He admitted that he and others agreed to rob a drug dealer and carried out the robbery. He also admitted facts supporting the sentencing calculations, including that a firearm was brandished or possessed, a person was injured, a person was abducted to facilitate the robbery, and marijuana was taken.

The court found that these sworn statements contradicted Rose’s later claims that he did not understand the evidence or plea agreement or that he had been pressured to plead guilty. The court also held that Rose could not show a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial even if his lawyer’s performance had been deficient.

The court rejected the competence claim because Rose told the court that his medication for post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder kept him stable and helped him understand what was happening. He also said his mind was clear and that he understood the proceedings. The court therefore found no basis for counsel to challenge Rose’s competence.

The court likewise found no ineffective assistance in counsel’s handling of sentencing. The sentencing enhancements had been included in the plea agreement and were supported by the offense facts. Counsel also submitted a detailed sentencing memorandum, provided medical and mental-health records and support letters, and argued for leniency and a lower sentence. The court concluded that counsel had made a substantial effort to obtain a favorable sentence, and that Rose received a sentence below both applicable guideline ranges.

Finally, the court held that counsel’s failure to object to the career-offender designation was not unreasonable under the law in effect when Rose pleaded guilty and was sentenced. The court noted that the designation was correct under then-applicable Second Circuit law. It also stated at sentencing that it would have imposed the same 120-month sentence even without the career-offender designation. For that reason, Rose could not show prejudice from counsel’s failure to object.

Insufficient or inadmissible evidence

The court stated that Rose’s guilty plea may have waived this claim. Even assuming the claim remained available, however, the court rejected it on the merits. Rose had acknowledged under oath that the government’s evidence proffer was substantially correct and had admitted committing the conspiracy and robbery and the facts supporting the charges. The court concluded that his claim was contradicted by his own sworn statements and was without merit.

Disposition

The court held that the case files and records conclusively showed that Rose was not entitled to relief under Section 2255. It therefore denied the motion and dismissed the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing.

The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Rose had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to close the civil case.