ILNews

7th Circuit rules trial attorneys not ineffective

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to find a defendant's trial attorneys' representation objectively deficient or ineffective pertaining to how they handled a man’s sentencing hearing.

David Swanson was convicted of various fraud, tax and money laundering offenses. At his sentencing hearing in March 2003, his trial counsel filed 13 pages of objections, including one to the four-level U.S.S.G. Section 3B1.1(a) enhancement in two separate paragraphs. That section deals with organized crime.

Swanson’s attorneys did not orally object to the enhancement, and ultimately U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in the Southern District of Indiana imposed it. Swanson was originally sentenced to 180 months imprisonment, which was later reduced on appeal to 151 months. He appealed again, but this time he raised an objection to the Section 3B1.1(a) enhancement, which he did not raise in his first appeal. The 7th Circuit declined to rule on it since it wasn’t originally raised.

Then Swanson filed his 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 petition maintaining there was no evidence to support that enhancement and that his trial counsel withdrew the objection at sentencing in a way that failed to preserve it for review on his first appeal. The District Court denied it. Barker found that the trial counsel did not intentionally waive or forfeit the objection to the enhancement and extensively advanced Swanson’s interests. She also found Swanson didn’t suffer any prejudice because she believed his sentence wouldn’t have been lower without the enhancement.

The 7th Circuit agreed with Barker, finding the written objections to the application of the enhancement were sufficiently developed. They also disagreed with Swanson that his attorneys waived his objection to the enhancement. Although initially there was miscommunication between an attorney and Barker at the sentencing hearing, that miscommunication is no basis for finding waiver, Judge John Tinder wrote in David H. Swanson v. United States of America, 11-2338.

Swanson also failed to show the attorneys' representation was objectively deficient.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT