ILNews

7th Circuit: Defendant’s counsel not ineffective

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday declined to find that a defendant’s appointed attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel requiring the court to vacate or correct his 20-year sentence.

Devon Groves received 120 months each on a count of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of ammunition by a felon, with the sentences running consecutively. He filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, but the District Court denied the motion.

Groves claimed his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the presentence investigation report’s characterization of his 1995 burglary conviction as a crime of violence and because his attorney failed to fulfill Groves’ intention to plead guilty.

Groves had three appointed attorneys – H. Jay Stevens, Anthony Kowals and Brian J. May. During the time Kowals represented Groves, he gave the defendant a copy of a plea agreement. Groves told Kowals he wanted to go to trial. Groves wrote a letter to the court saying he decided to plead guilty and signed the proposed agreement, but that signed agreement never reached Kowals or the court. Kowals withdrew, and May also noted that Groves always said he wanted to go to trial. He never found a signed plea agreement in Groves’ file.

In Devon Groves v. United States of America, 12-3253, the 7th Circuit noted that Groves was consistent in telling his attorneys that he wanted to go to trial and his letter to the court even said he wasn’t interested in a plea.

Regarding the characterization of his 1995 burglary conviction as a crime of violence, Groves argued that he pleaded guilty to Class C felony burglary of a building, not Class B felony burglary of a dwelling as charged in the information. The Class C felony is not considered a crime of violence.

The judges held counsel was not ineffective under Strickland. Later caselaw on whether a crime is a “crime of violence” for purposes of Section 4B1.2(a)(2) that may have provided a favorable ruling for Groves is not retroactive. They also noted that at sentencing, May successfully challenged two enhancements recommended in the PSR, thus reducing the advisory guideline calculations.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT