Unpublished Disposition, 841 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 841 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1988)

Billy Arnold CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87-1603.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 11, 1988.* Decided Feb. 25, 1988.

Before FARRIS, BRUNETTI and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

To establish deficient performance, a petitioner must show that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential and a court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See United States v. Austin, 817 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir. 1987). Clark contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in entering a guilty plea after his counsel had failed to inform him that the United States Attorney could file a post-sentencing parole recommendation under the terms of the plea agreement. Failure to advise of a collateral consequence does not constitute deficient performance. See United States v. Campbell, 778 F.2d 764, 768 (11th Cir. 1985). Even if it did, Clark could not show that his defense was prejudiced. The district court informed Clark of the maximum sentence, and Clark indicated satisfaction with his attorney. See United States v. Rubalcaba, 811 F.2d 491, 494 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 107 (1987).

To establish a denial of effective assistance of counsel, Clark must show that his counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. On this record, he can show neither.

We have already considered on appeal and rejected Clark's contention that the plea agreement was violated. United States v. Clark, 781 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.