Bautista Manzo v. USA
ORDER denying Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/3/17.(kas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CASE NO. 16cr638-LAB-1 and
ORDER DENYING MOTION UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255
SERGIO BAUTISTA MANZO,
Defendant Sergio Bautista Manzo pled guilty to one count of importation of marijuana
and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release.
Under his plea agreement, he waived any right to appeal and collateral attack his conviction,
except for a collateral attack based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Docket
no. 17 at 11:12–16.)
Bautista Manzo did not file an appeal, but he he filed a motion to vacate his
conviction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He is not challenging the voluntariness of his plea, or
his counsel’s effectiveness in advising him or allowing him to plead guilty. Instead, he argues
that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was questioned at the border. He
argues that his confession was involuntary and thus inadmissible, and that his counsel was
ineffective for failing to make that argument. He also contends his counsel should have
pointed out inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
16cv638 and 17cv619
Bautista Manzo’s guilty plea waived all those alleged defects. United States v. Davis,
452 F.2d 577, 578 (9th Cir. 1971) (“[A] plea of guilty admits all averments of fact in the
indictment, all defects not jurisdictional are cured, all defenses are waived and the
prosecution is relieved from the duty of proving any facts.”). Furthermore, his counsel was
not ineffective for failing to challenge admissibility of his confession, because there was no
trial and therefore no occasion to challenge admissibility.
The motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 3, 2017
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
16cv638 and 17cv619
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?