In US v. Washington, No. 08-3313, a cocaine base distribution prosecution, the court reversed the denial of petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence, holding that 1) counsel’s failure to understand the basic mechanics of the sentencing guidelines and, in particular, his failure to advise petitioner regarding the impact of relevant conduct on his potential sentence prior to meeting with the probation officer, amounted to constitutionally deficient performance under Strickland; and 2) petitioner was prejudiced as a result of the above failures because the facts he conceded at his presentence interview disqualified him from obtaining a two-level reduction pursuant to the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendments.
Related Resources
- Full Text of US v. Washington, No. 08-3313
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
