Saucedo v. United States of America
Filing
16
OPINION entered by Judge Richard Mills on 6/3/2016. Petitioner Margarito Saucedo's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, d/e 1 is DENIED. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Case CLOSED. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 07 June, 2016 10:02:32 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MARGARITO SAUCEDO,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
NO. 13-3381
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge:
Pending is Petitioner Margarito Saucedo’s Motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence.
As directed, the Government filed a Response and the Petitioner has
filed a Reply and supplement.
An evidentiary hearing is not warranted.
I.
On February 9, 2010, the Petitioner was charged in an indictment
with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute 5
or more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A). See United States v. Saucedo, Case Number 10-30010. On
July 28, 2010, the Government filed notice of the Petitioner’s prior felony
drug conviction, which made him eligible for the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence of 240 months of imprisonment.
On October 10, 2010, the Petitioner filed a motion to suppress
evidence. The motion was denied following an evidentiary hearing. On
February 18, 2011, following a jury trial, the Petitioner was convicted of
the offense charged in the indictment.
On June 20, 2011, the Court sentenced the Petitioner to a statutory
minimum term of 240 months, followed by ten years of supervised release.
On August 6, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction
and the denial of his motion to suppress.
On November 13, 2013, the Petitioner filed the instant motion under
§ 2255.
II.
The Petitioner alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel
which resulted in prejudice and violated his rights under the Sixth
2
Amendment. The Petitioner was represented at the preliminary hearing
and arraignment by Attorney Sari B. Fiscus. He was represented at trial
and sentencing by Attorney Jon Gray Noll.
The Petitioner alleges counsel failed to: (1) conduct a prompt and
reasonable factual and legal investigation; (2) fully apprise the Petitioner of
the relevant law and its application to the facts and potential options and
consequences; (3) pursue a cooperation agreement strategy; (4) provide
meaningful assistance to help the Petitioner obtain a cooperation agreement
and reduced sentence; (5) review the Presentence Investigation Report with
the Petitioner; (6) explain the effect of the Government filing a notice of
prior conviction; and (7) seek to remedy the prejudice counsel caused the
Petitioner due to this deficient performance.
The Petitioner contends that were it not for counsel’s deficient
performance, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the criminal
process would have been different. Specifically, the case might have been
resolved by a plea to a lesser charge and/or a sentence of less prison time
based on a cooperation agreement that could have been negotiated with
3
effective legal representation.
III.
A petitioner asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must
show that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and this lack of
competent representation resulted in prejudice. See United States v. Jones,
635 F.3d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687-96 (1993)). To show prejudice, the petitioner must show
there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s mistakes below, the
result of the proceedings would have been different. See id. The Court’s
review is highly deferential to the extent there is a “strong presumption that
counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional
assistance.” Vinyard v. United States, 804 F.3d 1218, 1225 (7th Cir.
2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 869).
An evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion is not required. See
Prewitt v. United States, 83 F.3d 812, 819 (7th Cir. 1996).
“Mere
unsupported allegations cannot sustain a petitioner’s request for a hearing.”
Id. (citations omitted).
4
The Petitioner here relies solely on his own unsupported assertions.
As the Government alleges, moreover, even assuming that the Petitioner’s
attorneys acted unreasonably in any way, the Petitioner cannot establish
prejudice. The Petitioner has pointed to nothing in the record tending to
show that there was a plea offer from the Government or that the
Government would have recommended a sentence below the statutory
minimum 240-month sentence that was imposed. Accordingly, all of the
grounds raised in his § 2255 motion fail because the Petitioner is unable to
show that the result of the proceeding (namely, his sentence) would have
been different without any unprofessional errors of counsel.
In a reply, the Petitioner raises for the first time issues regarding the
traffic stop, his consent to search and his post-arrest statements. The
Petitioner’s truck was stopped because of an expired paper registration
plate. He provided consent to search even before the officer asked for it.
As the Seventh Circuit observed in the direct appeal, the Petitioner’s
consent was given without any express limitation. See United States v.
Saucedo, 688 F.3d 863, 866 (7th Cir. 2012).
5
The Court concludes that the Petitioner’s argument regarding
evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure is without merit. The Petitioner relies on cases outside the
Seventh Circuit in asserting that “other acts” evidence should not have been
admitted. Even assuming that certain evidence should not have been
admitted, the Petitioner cannot establish prejudice because he is unable to
show the result would have been different.
The Petitioner has not shown that counsel’s performance fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness. Moreover, the Petitioner has not
shown that he was prejudiced by any decision.
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief
under § 2255.
An appeal may be taken if the Court issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because the Petitioner has
not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” see
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255
6
Proceedings.
Ergo, the Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 of Margarito Saucedo to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence [d/e 1] is DENIED.
The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
The Clerk will terminate any pending motions and close this case.
ENTER: June 3, 2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/Richard Mills
Richard Mills
United States District Judge
7
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?