D.Md.: Decision to plead rather than pursue suppression was valid strategic choice

2255 petitioner pled guilty rather than pursue the suppression motion. That was a valid strategic choice to get the 3 levels off the offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Nettles v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50963 (D. Md. April 11, 2014):

As to defense counsel’s decision to forego the suppression hearing and recommend acceptance of the plea agreement, the record reflects that Nettles’s attorney made a strategic decision to leverage the uncertainty of the outcome of the suppression motions into a plea agreement that almost guaranteed Nettles a sentence below the advisory sentencing guidelines range. And, that strategy was successful. Nettles received a sentence significantly below the bottom of the advisory sentencing guidelines range, and that range was based on a three-level deduction because Nettles accepted responsibility for his conduct and agreed to plead guilty. See Plea Agreement ¶ 6(b). Indeed, the agreed-upon sentence of 30 months is about half the length of the sentence at the upper end of the advisory guidelines range for an offense level of 21.

Conversely, if Nettles had not pleaded guilty, he would not have been entitled to the three-level deduction from the offense level. This means Nettles would have had an offense level of 24, with a higher advisory sentencing guidelines range. Nettles’s sentence, pursuant to the C plea, was less than half of the bottom of the range based on an offense level of 24. Thus, the plea agreement accurately reflects that defense counsel leveraged the uncertainty of the outcome of the suppression motions.