Demond L. Osley v. United States
2014 WL 1399419, 751 F.3d 1214 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish prejudice for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning plea negotiations, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the plea offer would have been accepted by the defendant and the court, and would have resulted in a less severe conviction or sentence.
Facts:
- In October 2006, Demond Osley met a desperate seventeen-year-old runaway in Michigan and persuaded her to travel to Florida with him by promising to be her boyfriend and provide her with a new life.
- During the flight to Florida, Osley informed the victim that she would be expected to earn $500 per night by engaging in commercial sex acts for him.
- Upon arriving in South Florida, Osley immediately put the victim to work in prostitution and subjected her to "rules of the game" including calling him "Daddy."
- On November 2, 2006, after the victim was arrested and Osley picked her up, they had a heated, physical, and verbal argument during which Osley beat her and placed a gun in her mouth.
- The next day, Osley transferred the victim to another pimp, co-defendant Stacey Greer, for whom the victim continued to work until her arrest on November 9, 2006.
- Throughout plea negotiations in January-February 2007, the prosecutor and Osley's lawyer, Philip Reizenstein, incorrectly informed Osley that there was no mandatory minimum sentence for his main charge, though a 2006 law had established a fifteen-year minimum.
- Osley rejected a plea offer for a sentence between 70 to 87 months, choosing to go to trial despite knowing he faced a maximum of life in prison, and consistently maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned an indictment charging Demond Osley with multiple counts related to sex trafficking of a minor.
- Osley rejected a plea offer from the government and proceeded to trial.
- A jury in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida convicted Osley of all charges.
- The district court conducted a sentencing hearing and imposed a sentence of 365 months imprisonment, a life term of supervised release, and a $400 special assessment fee.
- Osley moved pro se for a new trial, which the district court summarily denied.
- Osley appealed his convictions and sentence, as well as the denial of his motion for a new trial, to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (appellant Osley vs. appellee United States).
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded the case solely for the district court to clarify whether it had imposed a variance or a departure in calculating Osley’s sentence, affirming all other claims.
- At a resentencing hearing, the district court explained the original sentence was an upward variance and reimposed the same concurrent 365-month sentence, followed by supervised release for life.
- Osley appealed the resentencing to the Eleventh Circuit (appellant Osley vs. appellee United States), which affirmed the total sentence as not unreasonable.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Osley filed a timely pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- A magistrate judge recommended denying Osley's section 2255 motion, finding he could not demonstrate prejudice.
- Over Osley's objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, denying the section 2255 motion.
- Osley appealed the district court's denial of his section 2255 motion to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (petitioner-appellant Osley vs. respondent-appellee United States).
- The Eleventh Circuit granted Osley a certificate of appealability concerning specific claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the mandatory minimum sentence, life supervised release, and double counting.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does trial counsel render ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment by failing to advise a defendant during plea negotiations of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence and a potential life term of supervised release, or by failing to object to alleged impermissible double counting at sentencing, when the defendant rejects a significantly lower plea offer and consistently maintains innocence?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus, Circuit Judge
No, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance because Demond Osley failed to demonstrate prejudice under the two-part Strickland test. The court applied the three-part prejudice test from Lafler v. Cooper, requiring Osley to show a reasonable probability that: (1) he would have accepted a plea offer, and the prosecution would not have withdrawn it; (2) the court would have accepted its terms; and (3) the resulting sentence would have been less severe. First, Osley failed to show he would have accepted a plea deal recommending a fifteen-year mandatory minimum, given he had already rejected an offer for 70 to 87 months (potentially less than five years) and consistently maintained his innocence. His sworn statement that he would have accepted a fifteen-year deal was deemed speculative and undercut by his prior rejections and denials of guilt. Second, the original plea offer's terms were invalid because the district court could not have imposed a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum without specific government motions or safety-valve provisions, neither of which applied. Rule 11 would have required the court to inform Osley of the mandatory minimum, and if he had pled guilty under the erroneous understanding, the plea would have been vacated. Any speculation about a new, acceptable plea offer is insufficient. Third, Osley failed to show a reasonable probability that a plea under valid terms would have resulted in a less severe sentence than the 365 months imposed. The district court's detailed justification for the upward variance, based on the egregious nature of the crime, the victim's devastation, and Osley's lack of remorse, strongly indicated it would have imposed a severe sentence regardless. Regarding the life term of supervised release, counsel's failure to advise was not deficient performance because Osley knew he faced a potential life imprisonment sentence, which is more severe. Even if deficient, there was no prejudice for the same reasons as the mandatory minimum claim. Regarding the double counting claim, the court found no impermissible double counting because the Sentencing Guidelines allow for cumulative application of a cross-reference provision and specific offense characteristic enhancements for distinct, though related, aspects of conduct. Even if an error existed, there was no prejudice, as the district court's justification for the upward variance confirmed it would have imposed the same sentence irrespective of the specific guidelines calculation. The court also denied Osley's request for an evidentiary hearing, finding his claims were contradicted by the record and patently frivolous.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for proving prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel claims, especially in the context of plea negotiations under Strickland, Lafler, and Frye. It highlights that a defendant's rejection of a significantly more lenient plea offer, coupled with persistent claims of innocence, can undermine arguments that they would have accepted a harsher, but properly informed, plea. The decision also clarifies that when a plea offer is legally invalid due to an unknown mandatory minimum, the court must consider whether a valid, acceptable plea would have materialized and been approved by the court, a speculative burden difficult for defendants to meet. Furthermore, it clarifies that courts consider the actual sentencing rationale (e.g., upward variance) when assessing prejudice from alleged guidelines errors like double counting.
