United States v. Wilson Bigman

Wilson Bigman appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Bigman pleaded guilty to second degree murder and received an eighteen year sentence. Bigman’s § 2255 motion challenged the effectiveness of counsel throughout his criminal proceedings. The district court summarily denied Bigman’s motion. We vacate the district court’s denial of Bigman’s § 2255 claim based upon a challenge to the voluntariness of his plea and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

I

We review de novo the denial of a § 2255 motion. Roth v. United States, 724 F.2d 836, 839 (9th Cir.1984). We review de novo a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Austin, 817 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir.1987).

Bigman argues that his counsel’s performance was deficient during the pre-sentencing proceedings which led to his plea of guilty. Specifically, Bigman contends that his counsel never explained to Bigman the mens rea element of the second degree murder charge to which he pleaded guilty. Bigman contends that he was so grossly intoxicated when he committed the crime that he did not possess the requisite level of intent for a second degree murder conviction. Bigman argues that…