United States v. Frausto, No. 13-1274 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition. Defendant pled guilty to a drug offense and argued on appeal that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant has demonstrated that his counsel's performance was deficient, the record conclusively showed that defendant was not entitled to relief where he failed to demonstrate that, absent the three alleged errors, there was a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas. For the court's opinion in Frausto's direct appeal, see U.S. v. Frausto, 636 8th Cir. 2011). Assuming, without deciding, that Frausto's counsel was deficient with respect to the three claims contained in the habeas petition, Frausto was not entitled to habeas relief because he had failed to establish that, absent the error, there was a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty.
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.