Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Frederick Coleman v. United States of America

Case No.: 22-1678

Officials: Easterbrook, Wood, and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In 2013, Coleman was found guilty of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine, as outlined in 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Subsequently, he received a life imprisonment sentence, which was then mandatory, due to his previous convictions for a “felony drug offense” under section 841(b)(1)(A). The Seventh Circuit Court confirmed this decision.

Coleman, acting on his own behalf, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to invalidate his sentence. He argued that his appointed attorney, Vaupel, had been ineffective by failing to inform him about the government’s pretrial 21 U.S.C. 851 Notice of Enhancement. This notice indicated the government’s intent to seek a life imprisonment sentence based on Coleman’s prior cocaine-related convictions in Illinois. Coleman claimed that had he been made aware of this notice, he would not have agreed to go to trial.

Vaupel responded by stating that he had informed Coleman multiple times about the possibility of a mandatory life sentence and that the government was unwilling to waive the enhancement. In an attempt to bolster his case, Coleman sought to amend his petition, arguing that Vaupel’s ineffectiveness extended to not arguing that his Illinois convictions should not qualify as “felony drug offenses” due to the broader definition of “cocaine” under Illinois law compared to federal law.

However, the district court rejected Coleman’s section 2255 motion, along with his motion to amend, citing that the amendment did not pertain to the initial pleading and was filed after the appropriate timeframe.

The Seventh Circuit took a different stance and directed the district court to investigate whether Vaupel had indeed considered challenging the classification of Coleman’s prior offenses as part of a broader legal strategy. If such a consideration had taken place, the court should determine why Vaupel chose not to raise this argument. Coleman successfully demonstrated that he suffered harm due to his attorney’s alleged inadequate performance.

Reversed and remanded

Decided 08/15/23

Full Text