Background
Jason Schubert pled guilty to wire fraud and money laundering after defrauding hotel investors of approximately two million dollars. At sentencing, his counsel failed to object to a two-level offense-level increase under the Sentencing Guidelines that was inapplicable to his conviction. The district court sentenced Schubert to seventy months, a term below even the correct Guidelines range, stating it was varying from the Guidelines based on statutory factors. Schubert later moved to vacate his sentence under Section 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to object to the erroneous enhancement.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the ineffective assistance claim de novo. To prevail, Schubert had to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficiency caused prejudice. The court noted that while an erroneous Guidelines calculation can sometimes be presumptively prejudicial, that presumption does not apply when the record shows the district court imposed a sentence independent of the Guidelines range. The district court explicitly stated it rendered its sentence independent of the Guidelines range and varied based on Section 3553 factors. Because the record was not silent regarding the court’s rationale and the sentence was below the correct range, Schubert failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.
What it means going forward
This decision clarifies that a defendant challenging a sentence based on an erroneous Guidelines calculation must show that the error affected the district court’s decision. If the court explicitly states it varied from the Guidelines or imposed a sentence below the correct range based on other factors, the error is not prejudicial.