Terry P. Daniels v. United States

Citations: 54 F.3d 290; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 8882; 1995 WL 230998Docket: 94-1739

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; April 18, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Terry P. Daniels pled guilty in 1990 to conspiracy to possess over 10 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute and to using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, resulting in a proposed sentence of 10-21 months plus a mandatory five-year consecutive term. Following a government investigation into Daniels' involvement in a cocaine conspiracy, an amended plea agreement was negotiated. Daniels admitted to participating in a 2.5-kilogram cocaine conspiracy, which increased his sentence to ten years total, with the government agreeing not to prosecute him for the cocaine charges. Daniels later filed a Sec. 2255 petition to vacate his guilty plea, asserting that the district court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d) during the plea revision process and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to coercion. The appellate court determined that Daniels had forfeited his Rule 11(d) objection as he did not appeal directly from his conviction. Consequently, he needed to show cause for this failure and actual prejudice from the alleged errors, which he did not do. However, the court granted him an evidentiary hearing regarding his ineffective assistance claim.

Daniels claims ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging coercion by his attorney, James Reilley, to accept a revised guilty plea that admitted involvement in cocaine dealing and increased his sentence by at least 39 months. Daniels asserts he is innocent of the charges and was pressured to plead guilty due to a fee dispute, having only paid $2,000 of Reilley’s $10,000 fee. He claims Reilley advised him to accept the plea, despite his protests, because Reilley could not afford to take the case to trial without the remaining $8,000. Daniels requested a continuance to raise funds for trial, but was unable to do so and thus accepted the plea. 

Both Daniels and Reilley sought an evidentiary hearing to address these claims, but the district court denied the request, characterizing Daniels' claims as lacking credibility. The court noted that an evidentiary hearing is not mandatory if the record conclusively shows no grounds for relief, referencing relevant case law which stipulates that hearsay and speculative allegations do not warrant a hearing. However, given the conflicting affidavits from Daniels and Reilley, the record is deemed insufficiently developed to conclusively dismiss Daniels' claims. Thus, Daniels is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if his allegations could potentially invalidate his guilty plea. 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees effective assistance of counsel, and a conflict of interest may support a claim of ineffective assistance. Daniels contends that his inability to pay Reilley created a conflict that adversely affected the legal representation he received. To succeed on this claim, Daniels must show that the undisclosed conflict negatively impacted Reilley's performance.

Daniels asserts that a fee dispute led to an actual conflict of interest, negatively impacting Reilley's performance as his attorney. A conflict of interest occurs when a defense attorney must choose between advancing their own interests and those of their client. This can happen in situations involving multiple clients with conflicting interests or when a lawyer's financial interests oppose the client's interests. Specifically, a contingent fee arrangement in a criminal case and an attorney's interest in movie rights have been recognized as creating potential conflicts.

The record does not allow a clear conclusion on whether Reilley improperly pressured Daniels into accepting a revised plea due to the fee dispute. If such an actual conflict affected Reilley's performance, Daniels' guilty plea would need to be invalidated. Reilley denies that the fee dispute influenced his recommendation. The district court's reliance solely on conflicting affidavits from Reilley and Daniels for credibility assessments was deemed erroneous, as credibility cannot be determined from affidavits alone.

Consequently, Daniels is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to support his claim, while the government can demonstrate that Reilley provided competent representation. The court affirms the dismissal of Daniels' Rule 11 claim but remands the ineffective assistance claim for a hearing to investigate the existence and impact of any conflict of interest. The appeal proceeds without oral argument, as no request for such was filed.