Demond L. Osley v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that petitioner’s insistence on innocence during and after trial undermined his claim that he would have accepted plea deal
• holding that a defendant cannot show prejudice unless “the court would have accepted [the plea agreement’s] terms”
• concluding that petitioner established no prejudice in part because petitioner’s “insistence on his innocence, both before and after trial, makes it more difficult to accept his claim that he would have taken a fifteen-year plea deal.”
• holding that a § 2255 movant could not establish prejudice based on counsel’s failure to object to an alleged Guidelines miscalculation where “the record abundantly reveals that the district court would have imposed the same sentence even without the alleged [error]”
• explaining that the movant’s repeated claims of innocence, while not dispositive, are a relevant consideration in determining whether he would have accepted a plea bargain
• concluding, in a § 2255 case, that the defendant failed to show he would have accepted a plea given his rejection of other plea offers and protestations of innocence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).