A federal Appeals Court split 2-1 Tuesday on offering a new plea deal to a North Carolina man sentenced to more than 17 years in prison on drug charges. Edwin Leo Brown argued that his lawyers gave him bad advice that prompted him to reject an earlier deal in 2017.
Judge Roger Gregory’s majority opinion cited a 1984 precedent case.
“This appeal concerns Strickland v. Washington, which governs whether an attorney’s performance was deficient or fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and whether such deficient performance prejudiced the defendant as a result,” Gregory wrote. “Appellant Edwin Leo Brown rejected a plea deal after his attorney provided erroneous advice as to his sentencing exposure. The district court found — and the government concedes — Brown’s attorney performed deficiently. However, the district court ultimately found Brown failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by his attorney.”
“As such, the only question before us is whether Brown was prejudiced by his attorney’s shortcomings, i.e., if there was a ‘reasonable probability’ Brown would have accepted the plea deal if properly advised,” Gregory added. “Finding Brown has sufficiently established he was prejudiced by his attorney’s shortcomings, we reverse the district court’s denial of relief, remand the case, and require the government to re-offer Brown the same plea agreements.”
Indicted in 2016 on four federal drug charges and another charge of being a felon with a firearm, Brown faced a “maximum sentencing exposure of up to 90 years’ imprisonment,” Gregory wrote.
Brown’s first lawyer secured plea deals that would have limited his maximum prison exposure to 10 years. After a disagreement with that lawyer, Brown secured a second lawyer who suggested Brown would face a 10-year maximum sentence regardless of whether he accepted a plea agreement.
The defendant relied on that advice as he rejected the plea deal. A judge sentenced him to 210 months in prison, more than twice as long as federal advisory guidelines of 87-108 months.
The 4th Circuit initially upheld Brown’s sentence, but he filed a new appeal in 2019 alleging “ineffective assistance of counsel.” Working with a new lawyer, Brown argued that his previous attorneys had failed to “advise and properly counsel” him about the impact of accepting the plea arrangement.
After a hearing before a magistrate judge, Brown’s request was rejected in US District Court in 2022.
“[A]t its core, Brown was (erroneously) given two options: (1) accept the plea, receive 10 years’ imprisonment, but give up one’s appellate rights, or (2) plead guilty, receive ten years’ imprisonment, but keep one’s appellate rights,” Gregory wrote. “When faced with such erroneous advice, it is not unusual for a defendant to choose the latter option.”
Judge Robert Bruce King joined Gregory’s opinion. They sent the case back to a federal trial judge. The majority ordered prosecutors to offer Brown the same plea deal he rejected eight years ago.
Former President Bill Clinton appointed both Gregory and King. President Donald Trump appointed Judge Allison Jones Rushing, who dissented from the majority opinion.
“Edwin Brown rejected a plea deal that would have exposed him to a maximum of ten years in prison,” Rushing wrote. “Instead, he chose to plead guilty without a deal and was sentenced to over seventeen years. Now he says he would’ve taken the deal if his third attorney had properly advised him.”
“The district court was not required to accept Brown’s assertion at face value,” Rushing added. “The court held an evidentiary hearing, where Brown and two of his former attorneys testified. After assessing the witnesses’ credibility and weighing all the evidence, the district court believed the attorneys, who testified that they advised Brown to take the deal but he refused because he didn’t want to waive his right to appeal.”
“Despite identifying no clear error in the district court’s factual findings, the majority reverses the district court,” the dissent continued. “The majority finds a reasonable probability that Brown would’ve accepted the plea deal because (1) he says he would have, and (2) his ultimate sentence was longer than the sentence available under the deal.”
“What about the contrary evidence and the district court’s factual findings?” Rushing asked. “The majority disregards them. What about the Supreme Court’s admonition to ‘look to contemporaneous evidence’ to substantiate a defendant’s post hoc assertions? The majority rejects it as unnecessary in the context of declined plea deals, despite this Court’s precedent to the contrary. I respectfully dissent.”
The post Federal Appeals Court splits on new plea deal for NC drug convict first appeared on Carolina Journal.