United States v. Robert Arteca and Anthony E. Russo, Anthony Guidice

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that ineffective assistance can support plea withdrawal if it undermined voluntary and intelligent nature of defendant’s decision to plead guilty
• finding that defendant’s “self-serving and conclusory statement ... is insufficient in itself to show prejudice in the context of guilty pleas”
• noting that a requested “withdrawal of [a] plea agreement [is] properly refused when defendant showed no intention of going to trial and sought withdrawal solely in order to strike a better deal with the prosecutor” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• no “mechanistic rules for determining whether an adequate showing of prejudice has been made”; decision rests on record as a whole
• no prejudice where defendant informed “that in any event the court could impose a sentence . . . up to the statutory maximum of 20 years”
• “[I]n the context of plea negotiations, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that were it not for counsel’s errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have proceeded to trial.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).