Case: 12-10022 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________
No. 12-10022
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:10-cv-23135-AJ ; 1:05-cr-20315-AJ-1
DEAN DRUMMOND,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 19, 2012)
Before BARKETT, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dean Drummond, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion to
Case: 12-10022 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 2 of 3
vacate his sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 Drummond contends that
his defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), in failing to advise him of his option to plead
guilty without entering into a written plea agreement.
To establish that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, Drummond
must show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness measured by prevailing professional norms, and that this deficiency
prejudiced the defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88
(1984). We need not decide whether counsel performed deficiently if we conclude
that Drummond was not prejudiced by any alleged deficiency. See id. at 697.
Drummond argues that he received ineffective assistance because he claims
that none of the three defense attorneys who represented him prior to his trial
advised him of the option to enter an open plea and thereby become eligible for a
reduction of his sentence for acceptance of responsibility. However, the magistrate
judge who presided over an evidentiary hearing on Drummond’s § 2255 petition
found that, even if Drummond had been advised of the opportunity to enter an
open plea, he still would have decided to go to trial. The magistrate judge’s
1 Drummond was convicted of conspiring to import cocaine and marijuana, conspiring to
possess cocaine and marijuana, and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 846, 841(a)(1).
2
Case: 12-10022 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 3 of 3
conclusion is supported by the testimony of two of Drummond’s attorneys, who
testified that Drummond repeatedly expressed interest in going to trial and believed
that trial was worthwhile given the length of his potential sentence, even with a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
Moreover, although Drummond claims that none of his attorneys advised
him of the opportunity to enter an open plea, one of his defense attorneys testified
that he did inform Drummond of his probable sentence if he entered a guilty plea,
and that Drummond responded that he wanted to go to trial because, even with a
plea, the sentence would be too long.2 The magistrate judge who presided over the
hearing on Drummond’s § 2255 motion found the defense attorney’s version of
events to be credible. We accord deference to this determination, and Drummond
points to no additional evidence or testimony that calls the magistrate judge’s
finding into question. See Devine v. United States, 520 F.3d 1286, 1287 (11th Cir.
2008). Accordingly, Drummond has not shown that any lack of advice from his
attorneys prejudiced the outcome of his sentencing.
AFFIRMED
2 R. 3 at 54-55.
3