We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS
Derek Fields was indicted for kidnapping, for being a felon in possession of a gun, and a host of other violent offenses stemming from holding a man hostage for a ransom.
In a 28 USC § 2255 habeas corpus motion after his conviction, Derek claimed that during jury selection, his lawyer had passed him a plea offer from the Government, told him it was a 37-year plea deal, and instructed him to “just read it.” His lawyer offered no other information or advice, Derek said, so he rejected the offer. Derek argued that “but for” his lawyer’s “deficient advice[,] there is a reasonable probability [that he] would have pleaded guilty and been sentenced to less jail time.”
Derek said that if his lawyer had explained the benefits of taking the plea deal, he would have signed it. The district court didn’t buy it and denied the § 2255 motion. Last week, the 7th Circuit agreed.
To earn the right to an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 motion, the Circuit ruled, Derek had to establish prejudice. This kind of prejudice means that “it is reasonably probable that but for the incompetent advice of his attorneys, he would have accepted the government’s plea offer and pleaded guilty; and it is reasonably probable that the judge would have imposed a lower sentence.”
The problem was that Derek had already gone through two prior lawyers and a number of plea discussions, and their notes showed that he “had no inclination for a plea agreement.” In response to a government pre-indictment plea offer the Government had made, Derek told his lawyer it didn’t “make[] a difference whether it is 30 years or 33 years, or 37 years,” since any of those were “a lifetime sentence because his mother will be gone, his grandmother will be gone, and his kids will be grown.” The 7th found that Derek “remained steadfast about rejecting any plea offers despite [his lawyer’s] repeated warnings about the likely outcome of a trial.” The appellate court ruled that “[t]his consistent refusal to take a plea agreement is evidence that [Derek] did not suffer prejudice due to [his attorney’s] failure” to explain the 37-year offer” because he wouldn’t have taken it anyway.
Derek said in his § 2255 motion that he would have taken the deal if his lawyer had explained it, but he nowhere “explained why [his lawyer’s] repetition of the same points would have made a difference, nor does he connect this broad allegation to the specific 37-year plea offer at issue here. As a result, Fields’s declaration does not rebut the undisputed and detailed record evidence that he would have refused any offer contemplating 37 years’ imprisonment.”
The lesson here is that actions speak louder than an after-the-fact claim that the movant would have taken the offer if only… A § 2255 movant must explain why the plea offer he claims his lawyer did not disclose or explain was different from any prior offers he might have turned down.
Fields v. United States, Case No. 24-2913, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24725 (7th Cir. Aug. 17, 2026)
~ Thomas L. Root