US v. Cannady: In 2014, Cannady was convicted at trial of conspiracy to distribute drugs and conspiracy to possess them with intent to distribute. He was sentenced as a career offender, both due to his offenses of conviction and prior convictions that included another federal drug conspiracy offense. Eventually, the Fourth Circuit reversed a grant of Cannady’s motion for a new trial, remanding for “further proceedings consistent with this disposition.” Around the same time, the Fourth Circuit decided McCollum, which held that conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering was not a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines because conspiracy offenses under the Guidelines did not require an overt act as an element, where the generic definition of that offense did. On remand, Cannady’s counsel agreed with the Government that his original sentence should be reimposed, which it was. Cannady later filed a 2255 motion arguing that his counsel had been ineffective for failing to object to the career offender designation under McCollum. The district court denied the motion.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of Cannady’s 2255 motion. First, the court held that Cannady’s counsel could have made an argument on remand under McCollum. It rejected the Government’s argument that the appeal’s mandate limited the remand to simply reimposing the original sentence, but also concluded that even if it did an exception to the mandate rule based on a significant change in the law applied. Second, the court held that Cannady’s counsel’s performance was deficient, as a straight-forward application of McCollum would have rendered Cannady not a career offender. Finally, the court held that performance was prejudicial, as it led to Cannady being sentenced to a term many years above the otherwise-applicable Guideline range without any indication the district court would have imposed the sentence it did anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment