Legal Opinion

United States v. Washington

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided September 30, 2010No. 08-3313PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Patrick E. Washington requests reversal of the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence, claiming the district court erred in not holding his counsel’s performance constitutionally deficient. We conclude that counsel’s failure to understand the basic mechanics of the sentencing guidelines and, in particular, his failure to advise Mr. Washington regarding the impact of relevant conduct on his potential sentence prior to meeting with the probation officer, amounted to constitutionally deficient…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Kimmelman v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Jerome Byrd v. Greg SkipperCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
  2. United States v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
  3. United States v. KearnCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2024
  4. United States v. LustyikCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
  5. Bollinger v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2019

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API