U.S. District Court, WDNY – Ineffective assistance of counsel: U.S. v. Sandford

United States District Court of the Western District of New York

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Sentencing options – Presentence report challenge

United States v. Sandford

15-cr-6101L

Judge Larimer

Background: The defendant was charged with 11 counts of distributing a controlled substance, two counts of firearm offenses, and a single count of witness tampering. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on the firearm and witness tampering counts. The defendant filed a pro se Rule 33 motion alleging that his defense counsel was ineffective on the basis that he was not apprised of the consequences of a jury trial.

Ruling: The District Court denied the defendant’s Rule 33 motion. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient and he failed to show or demonstrate any prejudice from counsel’s performance. Based on the testimony, the court concluded that the defendant was fully advised of sentencing options. Moreover, defense counsel had filed objections to the presentence report challenging the Probation Department’s determination. The court rejected the calculations proffered by the report and determined the defendant’s sentencing range to be lower than what had been determined by the Probation Department.