Ineffective Counsel or Client’s Mistake: The Test of Effective Counsel
United States v. Olea-Monarez, No. 23-3249,2025 WL 2659249 (10th Cir. Sep. 17, 2025).
Staff Editor Amreen Sauji
October 2, 2025
Issue: Whether Olea-Monarez was provided effective counsel at the plea-bargaining phase?
Answer: No. Olea-Monarez’s attorney did not provide effective counsel during the plea-bargaining phase because Olea-Monarez’s decision was based on faulty advice.
Facts: Olea-Monarez was a part of a drug conspiracy, and charged with twenty counts including distributing methamphetamine, conspiracy, and possessing a firearm. The prosecutor offered Olea-Monarez a plea deal for twenty-five years in prison in exchange for Olea-Monarez pleading guilty to two counts. Olea-Monarez denied the offer and presented a duress defense using only his own testimony. The jury found him guilty of all twenty counts, and he was sentenced to prison. Later, Olea-Monarez filed a § 2255 motion that his attorney provided ineffective counsel, stating that his attorney failed to provide advice about the feasibility of the duress defense. The district court denied his motion stating it was Olea-Monarez’s decision to reject the plea offer.
Discussion: Under federal law, to prove ineffective counsel the performance of the attorney needs to be constitutionally deficient to the extent that it prejudices the defendant.[1] A defendant has the right to effective counsel when a plea is offered.[2] If the defendant denies a plea offer and is convicted with a more serious charges compared to the plea, prejudice can be shown if the defendant can prove he would have likely accepted the plea but for the attorney’s faulty advice.[3]
Olea-Monarez’s attorney claimed that he did provide effective counsel and did not push the plea deal on Olea-Monarez. The court stated that Olea-Monarez’s attorney failed to provide effective counsel regarding the duress defense. Specifically, that Olea-Monarez’s attorney did not advise Olea-Monarez that he would need more than his subjective beliefs to prove a duress defense thus failing to provide effective counsel.
The court concluded that Olea-Monarez was given a more serious charge because of ineffective counsel and was prejudiced. The district court’s denial of Olea-Monarez claim regarding effective counsel was reversed and remanded. The court agrees that the government should reoffer the 25-year plea to the defendant.
Key Authorities: Stickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012); United States v. Kearn, 90 F.4th 1301 (10th Cir. 2024).
[1] United States v. Olea-Monarez, No. 23-3249, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24025, at *5 (10th Cir. Sep. 17, 2025) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
[2] Id. at *6 (citing Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 168 (2012)).
[3] Id. (citing Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 168 (2012)).