Sara Jarrett v. United States, No. 14-2812 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Claim that Jarrett would have pleaded guilty if her attorney had fully explained her potential sentence under a plea agreement is contradicted by the fact that she maintained her innocence at every stage of the proceedings, and the district court did not err in rejecting the claim; other claims of ineffective assistance rejected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2812 ___________________________ Sara Jarrett lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: May 20, 2015 Filed: June 2, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Sara Jarrett is serving a 120-month prison term imposed after a jury found her guilty of conspiracy to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana and conspiracy to launder money. United States v. Jarrett, 684 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2012). In a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Jarrett raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the District Court1 denied relief without an evidentiary hearing but granted a certificate of appealability. Jarrett’s claims that she would have agreed to plead guilty if her attorney had fully explained her potential sentence under the terms of the plea offer that she was shown. That contention, however, is contradicted by evidence that Jarrett maintained her innocence at every stage of the proceedings. See Sanders v. United States, 341 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1199 (2004). In addition, we agree with the District Court that no prejudice resulted from counsel’s decision not to appeal from the denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal, counsel’s decision not to move for a severance or a mistrial after one codefendant testified about another codefendant’s abusiveness, counsel’s failure to move for a mistrial based on missing recordings that were essentially consistent with the trial evidence, or counsel’s failure to anticipate or object to a question posed to one witness about his relationship with Jarrett. See Hyles v. United States, 754 F.3d 530, 533 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 392 (2014). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied an evidentiary hearing. See id. at 534. The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-
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.
