William Casiano v. Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Petitioner William Casiano faced a charge that carried a 25-year minimum mandatory sentence. His attorney never told him about this minimum mandatory sentence when discussing a plea offer of 3 years. Instead, defense counsel encouraged him to go to trial, telling him he would likely only receive a sentence of 7 to 12 years if he lost. Counsel also failed to advise him of a subsequent 12-year plea offer. After a jury found him guilty, the trial court sentenced Mr. Casiano to a 45-year term of imprisonment. Mr. Casiano brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. At an evidentiary hearing, his attorney admitted he did not know about the 25-year minimum mandatory prior to sentencing. Had he known about it, his advice about the plea offer would have changed, and he would have emphasized the risks of trial. Mr. Casiano testified he would have accepted the plea offers if he knew about the minimum mandatory sentence. The postconviction court found that he failed to establish Strickland prejudice. A federal habeas court agreed. It declined to credit Mr. Casiano’s “after-the-fact” assertions and found no reasonable probability that he would have accepted either offer. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a certificate of appealability. This petition presents the following questions for review: 1. Does the rule in Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1967 (2017), that directs courts to