Thursday, May 01, 2025

Failure to Investigate Lease Related to Premises Enhancement Not Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

US v. Powell: In 2016, Powell pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy involving more than 100 grams of heroin. At sentencing, the issue was whether he would be given a two-level Guideline enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance based largely on a statement from one of Powell’s codefendants, Wilson (also a relative). Wilson testified that she bought drugs from Powell at his home and once witnessed someone deliver a kilogram of heroin there. Powell’s counsel cross examined Wilson, damaging her credibility. The district court overruled Powell’s objection, applied the enhancement, and imposed a sentence of 300 months (below the Guideline range of 360-480 months).

Just a few months later, Powell filed a §2255 motion arguing that his counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing. Specifically, he argued that he told counsel to investigate the lease at the home, which would prove that Powell did not lease the home during the time Wilson testified she bought drugs from him. Counsel disputed ever getting that information. The district court concluded that there was no deficient performance in failing to track down the lease and, even if there was, Powell suffered no prejudice because the enhancement does not turn on whether the defendant owned or leased the property in question.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit agreed and affirmed the denial of Powell’s §2255 motion. The court agreed that counsel’s performance was not deficient, given the numerous other ways that he was able to challenge the enhancement (and Wilson’s testimony). It was not enough that the lease might have further degraded Wilson’s testimony. The court also concluded that Powell “overstates the importance of the lease” given that Wilson had not testified that Powell leased or owned the home, only that she bought drugs from him there. It was “not irrelevant,” but “was far from determinative.” In addition, the record shows that the enhancement would have applied, regardless.

No comments: