Glover v. United States
531 U.S. 198 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, any amount of an increased prison sentence resulting from counsel's deficient performance constitutes prejudice under the test established in Strickland v. Washington.
Facts:
- Paul Glover served as the Vice President and General Counsel for the Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers, and Warehouse Workers Union.
- Glover utilized his control over the union's investments to orchestrate a scheme involving kickbacks, which personally enriched him and his co-conspirators.
- The malfeasance was discovered, leading to Glover's prosecution on federal charges.
- After his first trial ended in a hung jury, a second jury convicted Glover of labor racketeering, money laundering, and tax evasion.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Glover was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois following a jury trial.
- At sentencing, the District Court declined to 'group' Glover's money laundering counts with his other offenses, which increased his offense level and the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.
- Glover's counsel did not contest the grouping issue at sentencing or raise it on direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Glover's conviction and 84-month sentence.
- Glover filed a pro se motion in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for the failure to challenge the grouping issue, which he claimed increased his sentence by 6 to 21 months.
- The District Court denied the motion, ruling that an increase of 6 to 21 months was not a significant enough increase to constitute prejudice under Strickland.
- Glover appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's decision, relying on circuit precedent.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit's ruling on the prejudice standard.
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 an increased prison sentence of 6 to 21 months, resulting from counsel's allegedly deficient performance in a federal sentencing proceeding, constitute 'prejudice' within the meaning of the Strickland v. Washington test for ineffective assistance of counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. Any amount of increased jail time resulting from counsel's deficient performance constitutes prejudice for the purposes of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Court rejected the Seventh Circuit's rule requiring that a sentence increase meet some baseline standard of significance to be considered prejudicial. Drawing an analogy to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which attaches for any crime resulting in a sentence of imprisonment, the Court reasoned that 'any amount of actual jail time has Sixth Amendment significance.' The Court concluded that creating an arbitrary dividing line for how much extra time constitutes prejudice is unworkable and inconsistent with precedent. While the magnitude of a sentence increase might be relevant to assessing whether counsel's performance was deficient, it cannot serve as a threshold barrier to establishing the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'prejudice' prong of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, particularly in the context of sentencing. It explicitly rejects any judicial attempt to create a 'materiality' or 'substantiality' threshold for the length of an increased sentence to qualify as prejudicial. By holding that any amount of additional incarceration is sufficient, the Court simplifies the prejudice analysis for defendants and strengthens the Sixth Amendment right to effective representation at the critical sentencing stage. This ruling makes it easier for defendants to challenge sentencing errors caused by their attorneys, especially under determinate sentencing regimes like the Federal Sentencing Guidelines where small calculation errors can lead to concrete increases in prison time.
Unlock the full brief for Glover v. United States