US v. Rolando Stockton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:99-cr-00352-MJG-6,1:09-cv-00281-MJG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999243482].. [12-7298]

Appeal: 12-7298

Doc: 60

Filed: 11/20/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROLANDO STOCKTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:99-cr-00352-MJG-6; 1:09-cv-00281-MJG)

Argued:

October 31, 2013

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

KING

and

November 20, 2013

THACKER,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Michael Lawlor, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Andrea L. Smith,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7298

Doc: 60

Filed: 11/20/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Rolando Stockton, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. §
2255

motion

contending,

inter

alia,

that

his

trial

counsel

failed to advise him properly with regard to two pre-trial plea
offers.

The

district

court

certificate of appealability.

denied

relief

but

granted

a

We review the district court’s

conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear
error.

See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 205 (4th

Cir. 2010).
To

establish

ineffective

assistance

of

counsel,

Stockton

must show that: (1) counsel’s failures fell below an objective
standard

of

reasonableness,

performance was prejudicial.
U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984).

and

(2)

counsel’s

deficient

See Strickland v. Washington, 466

The Supreme Court recently addressed

the standard for showing 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, the

Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
applies to the plea bargaining process, and prejudice occurs
when, absent deficient advice, the defendant would have accepted
a plea that would have resulted in a less severe conviction,
sentence, or both.

See Lafler, 132 S. Ct. at 1384–85.

In Frye,

the Supreme Court held that a component of the Sixth Amendment
right to counsel in the plea bargaining context is that counsel
2

Appeal: 12-7298

Doc: 60

Filed: 11/20/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

has a duty to communicate any offers from the Government to his
client.

See Frye, 132 S. Ct. at 1408.

In this case, counsel communicated the plea offers from the
Government to Stockton prior to trial, along with Stockton’s
sentence

exposure,

and

available defense.
offers

were

an

assessment

of

Stockton’s

Although counsel told Stockton that the plea

“good

recommendation

provided

offers,”

that

Stockton

counsel
accept

made

the

no

offers

affirmative
and

left

the

decision of whether to accept the offers solely to Stockton, who
steadfastly maintained that he was not guilty of the charges.
Stockton contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to

make

such

an

affirmative

recommendation

and

failing

to

vigorously attempt to persuade him to accept it.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, and we
agree with the district court that trial counsel’s performance
was not deficient.
U.S.L.W.
(“Although

____,
a

See, e.g., Burt v. Titlow, No. 12-414, ____

2013

WL

defendant’s

5904117,

*6

proclamation

(U.S.
of

Nov.

innocence

5,

2013)

does

not

relieve counsel of his normal responsibilities under Strickland,
it may affect the advice counsel gives.”); Jones v. Murray, 947
F.2d 1106, 1109-11 (4th Cir. 1991) (“We cannot conclude that
counsel’s decision, at this point and in the context of his
client’s rejection of the plea offer for the stated reason that
he was innocent, to refrain from a vigorous attempt to change
3

Appeal: 12-7298

Doc: 60

Filed: 11/20/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

his client’s mind was ‘outside the wide range of professionally
competent assistance.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690)).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED

4