Ridley Mcgreevy & Winocur PC Fredric Winocur Completely failed to investigate the facts and went to prison because of their failure. Denver Colorado

The Supreme Court has long held that the 6th amendment right to counsel includes the right to effective counsel.

Moreover the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the plea bargaining process.

As quoted "It is clear that when representing a criminal defendant , an attorney has a duty to reasonably INVESTIGATE THE FACTS, REVIEW EVIDENCE AND PREPARE A DEFENSE.' The question is not necessarily whether the previous counsel made reasonable strategic choices that turned out to be unsuccessful, but rather did the attorney FAIL TO INVESTIGATE?

For claims arising in the context of a guilty plea,(as my case) the prejudice requirement is slightly different and "focuses on whether counsels constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process. In other words the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsels errors, he would have insisted on going to trial.

After investigating the facts of my particular case my attorney Fredric Winocur at Ridley Mcgreevy & Winocur completely failed at fulfilling his constitutional duty. His failure to provide even the most basic of investigation and review of the discovery was not a strategic decision. Instead it was a complete and total failure to provide effective counsel. To say Winocurs performance fell below the standard of reasonableness is an understatement.

Only after I signed a plea deal at his recommendation (2.5 years later) was the "ALLEGED" evidence given to me for review. I immediately noticed factually incorrect statements, accounting opinions and assumptions that just did not make sense. It was clear that the  FBI Agent in charge (Kate Funk) just did not understand the business and thought it was a Ponzi scheme.

So with this review of the evidence, I NOT WINOCUR Investigated the background of Agent Funk.

I discovered that she lied on her sworn affidavit. She lied about Receiving an Accounting Degree from the University of Kansas in 1995 (they do not offer an Accounting degree). She lied about graduating in 1995. She lied about becoming a Certified Public Accountant in 1996 thru the State of Kansas. (Facts are Funk has never been licensed to practice in any state). As opined on by numerous lawyers and accountants its obvious Agent Funk committed perjury and defrauded the Judge in this case by lying about her credentials to enhance her credibility to obtain the search warrants. If not that why lie? Why not be truthful? 

Winocur never even bothered to check.

At that point I again NOT WINOCUR called the court to get a certified copy's of the warrant(s) and the affidavits. I was shocked to find out that "THERE ARE NO WARRANTS REGISTERED IN MY CASE!" Federal rules of evidence clearly state that a search warrant once executed must be brought back to the issuing Magistrate Judge for registration. How else to guarantee the authenticity of what was attested to and what was seized? Why was it not registered as the law requires? How could Winocur also miss this one? He did not even look on line or make a simple call to the court as I did. 

HOW COULD ANY COMPETENT LAWYER ADVISE HIS CLIENT TO ENTER INTO A PLEA DEAL WITHOUT EVER SEEING A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ALLEGED WARRANT AND AFFADAVIT? 

Had Mr. Winocur done the most basic of investigation of online searches and simple phone calls he would have discovered as I did:

1. Agent Funk committed perjury in enhancing her credibility to obtain the warrants.

2. Agent Funk violated accounting laws in 2 states by attesting to the affidavit.

3. The alleged warrants and affidavits were never registered with court as required by law. Simply put they dont exist on the record.

All this discovered by me after a plea deal was in place. Once all this was uncovered I brought these facts amongst others to his Mr. Winocurs attention. Mr. Winocur promptly resigned stating "We now have a conflict of interest"  NO KIDDING!

I then secured court appointed counsel and attempted to revoke my plea not once but twice! I believe that this attempt to revoke my plea twice after seeing the purported evidence shows that if it were not for Winocurs numerous and catastrophic errors I would have opted to go to trial. I cant think of one single action showing my will to go to trial more then revoking my plea.

The damage was done. The judge in the case would not let me have my day in court. This sits solely on Wincours shoulders. Mr. Winocur should hang his head in shame. He should be held accountable for his failure to provide me with my 6th amendment right to effective counsel. Winocur failed miserably to do the most basic of work and my life was ruined because of it. 

This is a true and factually account of of Winocurs comlete failure represent me.