United States v. Zasha Botelho

Good Law
453 F. App'x 744
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 13, 201109-17337California603 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Zasha Botelho appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, and correct her sentence alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. United States v. Botelho, No. 05-00071, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93062 (D.Haw. Oct. 6, 2009). The defendant contends that her counsel was ineffective by erroneously advising her as to the amount of cooperation necessary to qualify for a downward departure recommendation for substantially assisting the government. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2253, and 2255, and we affirm.

“The two-part Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the plea context, a defendant must show that: (1) in light of all the circumstances, counsel’s performance fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness”; and (2) “a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.