Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Scott Weldon v. United States
Citations: 840 F.3d 865; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15626; 2016 WL 4468077Docket: 15-1994
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; August 24, 2016; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Scott Weldon, the petitioner-appellant, pleaded guilty to distributing an illegal drug that resulted in a death, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1, b)(1)(C). He received an eight-year sentence after agreeing to cooperate with the government in prosecuting another individual involved in the incident. Three years later, Weldon sought to vacate his conviction, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for being persuaded to plead guilty without a defense. The district court denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The case involved Weldon, his girlfriend Andrea Fields, and their friend David Roth, who pooled money to buy heroin from Weldon's dealer. Weldon purchased the heroin and returned it to the car, where Fields mixed and shared it with Weldon and Roth. Roth later died from the heroin mixture. Fields was acquitted of distribution charges, arguing her actions did not constitute distribution. The court noted the oddity of classifying their actions as distribution, likening it to sharing meals among friends. It cited precedent from United States v. Swiderski, which states that individuals acquiring possession of a drug for joint use do not qualify as distributors. This principle has been supported in various cases but has not yet been addressed by the Seventh Circuit. The government contends that the precedent set in Swiderski does not apply to this case, arguing that Weldon was the only participant to engage in a direct exchange of money for heroin, suggesting that the application of Swiderski would require unrealistic behavior among the defendants. The text critiques this reasoning, asserting that the key consideration is that all defendants were involved in the same transaction and that no legal precedent mandates literal simultaneous possession. It cites Swiderski and Speer to support this perspective. Furthermore, it highlights that Weldon’s attorney’s repeated assertions that a defense against distribution charges would fail constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. For Weldon to obtain a new trial, he must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had it not been for his counsel's errors, he would have chosen to go to trial rather than plead guilty, which may have influenced plea negotiations favorably. Consequently, Weldon is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to evaluate this probability. The district court’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The government's motion to supplement the record on appeal is denied, with the directive that the district court should have the complete record upon remand.