Case No. 3:14-CV-370-WKW.


United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Nature of Suit: 510 Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Oyango Lanar Tolbert, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Oyango Lanar Tolbert, Plaintiff, represented by Everett McRae Urech , Urech & Livaudais, PC.

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Bradley G. Bodiford , U.S. Attorney's Office, Sandra Jean Stewart , United States Attorney Office & Jonathan S. Ross , U.S. Attorney's Office.


W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.

On July 6, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 54) to which Petitioner timely objected (Doc. # 56).1 Petitioner's claim is for ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's failure to obtain a plea deal. He therefore brings the instant motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Upon an independent and de novo review of the record and Recommendation, Petitioner's objections are due to be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is due to be adopted.

Petitioner's objection contends that his attorney, Ms. Connor, should have "discuss[ed] the possibility of a plea bargain with him." (Doc. # 56, at 4.) However, the only case Petitioner offers for this proposition is Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), a Supreme Court case that affirmed the application of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. From Lafler it does not follow that Petitioner's attorney was required to bring up the possibility of a plea bargain with Petitioner. Indeed, given the fact that Petitioner had rejected the suggestion of a plea deal when his previous attorney brought it up, this court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's assessment that "it was not professionally unreasonable for Conner not to raise anew with Tolbert the possibility of pleading guilty or of seeking a plea deal after she was appointed to represent him." (Doc. # 54, at 13.) Even if it were unreasonable, Lafler also requires Petitioner to show

that but for the ineffective advice [or lack thereof] of counsel[,] . . . there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court (i.e., that the defendant would have accepted the plea and the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening circumstances), that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer's terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.

566 U.S. at 164. Petitioner could not, and did not even attempt, to establish any of these facts.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner's objections (Docs. # 55, 56) are OVERRULED;

2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 54) is ADOPTED; and

3. Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED, and this case DISMISSED with prejudice.

A final judgment will be entered separately.


1. Petitioner filed two documents after the issuance of the Recommendation (Docs. # 55, 56), both of which are docketed as "objections." However, only the second one (Doc. # 56) objects to the Recommendation. However, to the extent that Document Number 55 contains an objection, it is due to be overruled.


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases