Wilson v. United States of America
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The petition is denied. I also deny a certificate of appealability. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 12/12/2014. (Kaye, Julia)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
– against –
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
I assume familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
Petitioner raises three issues. I address them seriatum.
1. Petitioner alleges that his attorney assured him that a plea of guilty would “result in a
sentence between 57 to 71 months.” This “assurance”—assuming it was given—was
based on an erroneous calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines. Indeed, as calculated
by the Probation Department, the Sentencing Guidelines’ range was 188 to 235
months. This claim does not provide a basis for relief for several reasons. First, the
district judge specifically advised petitioner during the plea allocution that the lower
guideline range was “an estimate, and not binding on me. And the fact is that if I
come up with a different estimate you will not be entitled to withdraw your plea.”
Nevertheless, petitioner plead guilty after receiving this warning. Moreover, after the
PSR calculated the higher guideline range, petitioner’s counsel sought and obtained a
Fatico hearing to challenge the “relevant conduct” that caused the increase in the
Sentencing Guidelines range. Finally, petitioner does not allege that if he had been
apprised of the correct guideline range, he would not have plead guilty. Indeed, the
evidence against him was so overwhelming, including a videotape of the drug sale to
which he plead guilty, that a conviction would have been assured had he not plead
guilty and the Guideline range would have been 262 to 267 months because he would
not have received a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. This would
have been dictated by a total offense level of 34 Criminal History Category 6, instead
of a total offense level of 31.
2. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
This argument is undeveloped in the petition and for this reason alone cannot provide
a basis for relief.
3. Petitioner’s claim that he is actually innocent is frivolous in light of his plea of guilty
and the factual basis for his plea, which is set out on pages 11-12 of the plea minutes
of February 22, 2005.
These considerations aside, the petition is also untimely. Petitioner did not respond to the
letter of the United States Attorney dated October 14, 2014, stating that it did not intend to waive
the defense of the statute of limitations, and arguing that, for this reason alone, the petition
should be denied.
The petition is denied. I also deny a certificate of appealability.
Brooklyn, New York
December 12, 2014
Edward R. Korman
Edward R. Korman
Senior United States District Judge
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?