Thomas v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
27 F.3d 321 · 1994
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably United States v. Ginn (1997), United States v. Fregoso (1995)
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · Nowak v. Trezevant · Wagner v. United States Bankruptcy Court · United States v. Arvanitis
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. At the time of the plea hearing, it was impossible to know, or even predict, whether Thomas would be sentenced as a career offender. As the district court pointed out at that hearing, and as Thomas stated he understood, the court would be unable “to determine the guidelines sentence” for him “until after the presentence report had been completed.” Thomas further stated that he had no complaint “about the job of law-yering” his counsel had done, that he was “satisfied with the advice and services and representation” his lawyer had given him, and that if he were “dissatisfied or disgruntled or disappointed with the eventual disposition [of his] case,” his lawyer “will not be the one to blame for that.” When the presentence report recommended that Thomas receive an enhanced sentence as a career offender, Thomas challenged that recommendation on various grounds. He did not, however, seek to withdraw his guilty plea and stand trial because his lawyer’s failure to tell him he might be so sentenced constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Indeed, at the beginning of the sentencing hearing, Thomas stated, “Yes, I have”, in reply to the clerk’s question whether he had been “satisfied with the representation of counsel in this matter?” If his lawyer’s failure to advise him of the possibility that he might be treated as a career offender constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, one would have expected Thomas to have raised the issue at that time. As the district court sta”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“2. Thomas also has not shown that his attorney’s failure to inform him that he could be given an enhanced sentence as a career offender prejudiced him in that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s [alleged] unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 . Although Thomas stated in his § 2255 motion (which his attorney signed) that he “had no idea when he pled guilty that he could be convicted as a ‘career offender,’” he did not state that had he been aware of that possibility he would have pleaded not guilty and stood trial. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that, if he had pleaded not guilty and gone to trial, he would not have been convicted and would not have been sentenced as a career offender. Indeed, since the district court’s sentence of 262 months imprisonment on Count 6 was at the bottom of the Guideline range of 262-327 months, Thomas might have received a greater sentence had he gone to trial than he received on his guilty plea.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Do you understand that the Court is not going to be able to determine the guidelines sentence for you until after the pre-sentence report has been completed and you and the Government have had an opportunity to challenge any facts reported by the probation officer? Do you also understand that after it has been determined what guideline applies to a case, the judge has the authority in some circumstances to impose a sentence that is more severe or less severe than the sentence called for by the guidelines? Do you also understand that if the sentence imposed upon you is more severe than you may have expected, that you will still be bound by your plea agreement and by the plea of guilty, that you will have no right to withdraw your guilty pleas? And just so there’s no misunderstanding between us, Mr. Thomas, do you understand that if you plead guilty here today you’re putting the next 60 years of your life and $3,000,000 of your money right on the line?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.