US v. Kenneth Mitchell, No. 13-6064 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6064 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH MITCHELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00351-CCB-4; 1:08-cv-01723-CCB) Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lawlor, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Mitchell, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion contending, in relevant part, that his trial counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to fully convey to him his options to plead guilty. We granted remanded hearing. a his certificate case to of the appealability district on for court this an claim and evidentiary United States v. Mitchell, 484 F. App x 744 (4th Cir. 2012) (No. 11-6711). On remand, the district court found that counsel had sufficiently informed Mitchell regarding his plea options, specifically cooperation with the an option to Government. plead Mitchell guilty without appeals for the second time. To succeed on his ineffective assistance claim, Mitchell must show that: (1) counsel s failures fell below an objective standard deficient performance Washington, recently 466 U.S. addressed of reasonableness, and (2) counsel s was prejudicial. See Strickland 668, 687 The Supreme the (1984). standard for showing v. Court ineffective assistance during the plea bargaining stage in Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012). In Lafler, Amendment right to the Supreme counsel Court applies to held that the Sixth the plea bargaining process, and prejudice occurs when, absent deficient advice, the 2 defendant would have accepted a plea that would have resulted in a less severe conviction, sentence, or both. at 1384-85. the Sixth Lafler, 132 S. Ct. In Frye, the Supreme Court held that a component of Amendment right to counsel in the plea bargaining context is that counsel has a duty to communicate any offers from the Government to his client. Frye, 132 S. Ct. at 1408. We review the district court s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. that the Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 205 (4th Cir. 2010). The gravamen of Mitchell s appeal is district court erred in concluding that his counsel communicated to Mitchell that, in addition to a plea agreement requiring cooperation, the Government had also offered a plea agreement without cooperation. Mitchell contends that, had he presented with such an offer, he would have accepted it. thoroughly reviewing evidentiary hearing reversible error Mitchell s counsel the held in the record on this and specific district adequately the transcript issue, court s conveyed to we After of the find no conclusion Mitchell been his that plea options, including the option to accept a plea agreement without further cooperation, and that counsel s representation was not deficient in this regard. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 3 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
