Conrad v. Hinman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an evidentiary -4- No. 25-1706, United States v. Barnes hearing produced an adequate record to permit consideration of an ineffective-assistance claim in the context of a motion to withdraw
• holding, in an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, that “[w]hen an attorney erroneously promises a certain sentencing outcome, a defendant cannot show prejudice if he was accurately advised during the plea colloquy”
• considering that “the government ‘might be hampered in its ability to bring back for testimony’ the already-sentenced codefendants.” (quoting United States v. Carson, No. 18-cr- 204(2), 2021 WL 2581300, at (S.D. Ohio June 23, 2021))
• ruling on IAC claim where the district court held several evidentiary hearings, at which the defendant testified 12 No. 23-5379, United States v. Couch that his attorney promised him that pleading guilty would result in a sentence of only seventeen years
• “When an attorney erroneously promises a certain sentencing outcome, a defendant cannot show prejudice if he was accurately advised during the plea colloquy.”
• “When an attorney erroneously promises a certain sentencing outcome, a defendant cannot show prejudice if he was accurately advised during the plea colloquy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).