Case Study: Post-Conviction Breakthrough Frees Client 39 Months Early

5 Min. Read

After other lawyers had deemed the case hopeless, Attorney Adam Rodrigues’ innovative post-conviction relief strategy regarding consecutive sentencing saved his client, Cordario DeBose, as much as 39 months in prison.

In December 2020, Cordario DeBose's family prepared for his long-awaited release, expecting him to come home after serving what they understood to be his concurrent sentences. Cordario had completed approximately 13½ years in state prison in Alabama.

Instead of freedom, Cordario was transferred to a federal facility and informed that he still faced another 10 to 11 years (130 months) with an anticipated release date of 2027. His combined state and federal sentences, initially intended to be 13½ years, had somehow become a staggering 24-year sentence due to a critical error in sentencing clarity regarding concurrent and consecutive terms.

Cordario was a victim of a complex legal oversight involving dual state and federal convictions where the state court had erroneously guaranteed a concurrent sentence. See the DeBose family full testimonial story here.

Why Two Other Lawyers Failed

Cordario's fiancée, Shemicko Bolton, immediately hired multiple post-conviction attorneys. They quickly ran into the legal wall that plagues many clients dealing with federal sentencing: the mandatory consecutive nature of certain charges.

Cordario’s fiancée, Shemicko Bolton, immediately hired multiple post-conviction attorneys — both of whom ran into the same wall that many clients do: federal mandatory consecutive sentencing.

One attorney secured minor relief by making a 46-month federal count run concurrently, but concluded that nothing could be done about the 84-month gun charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), because that statute required its sentence to run consecutive (be “stacked”) to any other sentences.

The sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was extremely difficult to challenge because the law explicitly prohibited running it together with any other sentence.

After determining there were no further options, the previous attorney withdrew. A second post-conviction lawyer delivered the same discouraging message: nothing more could be done.

This outcome is sadly common. There is often "no straightforward path" or motion to simply change a consecutive sentence to a concurrent one. Generally, altering a consecutive sentence requires undoing the entire plea or trial and redoing the whole case, often negotiated through the post-conviction process.

For more on how these sentencing structures work and when post-conviction relief may apply, see our full Post-Conviction Relief Guide.

Adam Rodrigues’ Novel Strategy: Vacating the Unfixable Plea

When Shemicko contacted Adam, she pointed out that the original 2009 transcripts clearly showed the Tennessee judge and assistant district attorney intended for the 13½-year state sentence to run concurrently with the federal sentence.

Adam Rodrigues reviewed the transcripts and saw a strong potential for legal relief. He understood that conventional post-conviction motions were unlikely to succeed, especially against the mandatory nature of the § 924(c) charge. He needed an innovative approach.

After intensive research and consultation with fellow attorneys, Adam devised a legal strategy that other lawyers had missed: The only way to ensure the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) credited Cordario’s state time was to vacate the original state plea and re-enter a new plea to a lesser offense with a shorter sentence.

• Adam was the only attorney who identified a path to undo the state plea, restructure the sentence, and force the application of federal credit.

• The goal was to secure a five-year state sentence that would align Cord’s total time served with the originally intended 13½ years, thereby forcing the BOP to credit the time he had already served.

How Rare Post Conviction Wins Are

According to U.S. Department of Justice sentencing data, fewer than 5% of defendants sentenced under § 924(c) ever obtain post-conviction relief. Most cases are denied long before any evidentiary hearing. This fact underscores how Adam Rodrigues’ successful restructuring of a consecutive sentence was both rare and precedent-setting.

| Key Insight: Relief under § 924(c) is statistically extraordinary. Source: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2024 Federal Sentencing Report.

Relentless Client Advocacy

Adam's dedication extended far beyond filing the initial petition in Shelby County on December 15, 2022. He exhibited the persistence required to overcome systemic inertia, which ultimately made the difference.

1. Direct Negotiation and Calculation: Adam faced skepticism, even from the state attorney handling the case who initially doubted the BOP would credit the state time. Adam repeatedly demonstrated that the state convictions were for the same conduct. He calculated Cordario’s exact jail credit—over 5,300 days—and then contacted BOP personnel directly, to ensure the credit was given.

2. Securing the Hearing: Adam had to persistently follow up, repeatedly reaching out to the state attorney to schedule the necessary evidentiary hearing. He was prepared to file a motion himself to get the case on the docket.

3. The Final Push: After 18 months of coordination, the evidentiary hearing occurred on July 18, 2024, and the court successfully vacated Cordario’s original state judgment. However, Cordario remained in local jail for weeks while the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) processed paperwork. Where other attorneys "would have just let the process run its natural course," Adam continued to pressure TDOC and BOP to compute and forward the credit, knowing that every single day of freedom mattered.

Freedom Years Ahead of Schedule

On August 27, 2024, Adam received the confirmation: Cordario was finally released.

Without Adam Rodrigues’ sophisticated legal maneuver and persistent follow-up, Cordario likely would have remained wrongfully incarcerated until 2027. Adam saved Cordario as much as 39 more months in prison after two previous post-conviction lawyers stated that his case was hopeless.

This successful outcome demonstrates Adam's innovative thinking and willingness to tackle the intersection of complex state and federal sentencing rules, leading to a result that could serve as a case study for future legal practitioners.

Cordario is now home in Memphis with his wife, Shemicko thanks to Adam Rodrigues Law, but the support didn’t stop there.

Although Cordario is free, he was placed on three years of federal supervised release. Adam believes Cordario should not have been placed on supervised release at all, given the four extra years he unjustly served. To ensure the family can move fully move forward with their lives, on September 10, 2025 Adam Rodrigues filed a motion for early termination of supervised release.

You need an attorney who will not accept the easy answer.

If you or a loved one are facing complex sentencing issues, especially those involving concurrent vs. consecutive terms, or post-conviction relief where other lawyers have given up, contact the law office of Adam Rodrigues today to review your case by phone or through a confidential consultation.

Adam Rodrigues Law specializes in revisiting the entirety of a case to find legal options that overturn pleas or trials, even when challenging the powerful, mandatory nature of federal charges like § 924(c). We go beyond the norm to calculate your full credit and personally challenge the bureaucratic processes that delay justice.

FAQs- People Also Ask About Post-Conviction Relief & Sentencing

• Can a consecutive federal sentence ever be changed after it’s imposed?

  Yes, but only under extraordinary circumstances. Federal consecutive sentences—especially under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)—are considered mandatory.
  However, in rare cases like this one, a post-conviction relief motion can succeed if there’s proof that the original plea or judgment didn’t reflect the court’s true intent (for example, when concurrent sentencing was intended but recorded incorrectly).

• What does it mean to “vacate a plea,” and why would an attorney do that?

  To vacate a plea means to legally undo the prior plea agreement, effectively resetting the case to an earlier stage.
  Attorneys only take this route when there’s a procedural or constitutional issue—for example, if a plea was entered under mistaken terms or the client’s rights weren’t fully explained.
  In this case, vacating the original state plea allowed the court to restructure the sentence so federal time credit could apply correctly.

• How rare is it to win post-conviction relief under § 924(c)?

  Extremely rare. According to U.S. Sentencing Commission data (2024), fewer than 5% of §924(c) post-conviction motions succeed, and most are denied before a hearing.
  That’s why overturning or modifying a stacked sentence under this statute is considered an exceptional legal outcome.

• What happens after someone is released early through post-conviction relief?

  They may still face federal supervised release, as Cordario did here.
  However, attorneys can request early termination of supervision if the person has completed a significant portion without violations—especially when they’ve already served more time than the law intended.
  Adam Rodrigues Law continues to advocate for clients even after release to help them fully reintegrate and clear remaining restrictions.

Last Updated: November 4, 2025; For continued reading, review our Post Conviction Relief page.

Legal Disclaimer: The information in this case study is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every case is unique, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.