Castellanos v. United States of America
Filing
8
DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, Castellanos has failed to show a basis for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, his motion for relief is DENIED. Because Castellanos has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, I decline to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act). I certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal taken from thi s order would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Castellanos to the address listed above. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 10/26/2020) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
- against -
:
DECISION AND ORDER
GIOVANNI CASTELLANOS,
:
20 Civ. 2758 (DC)
15 Civ. 3196 (DC)
13 Cr. 40 (DC)
Defendant.
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
APPEARANCES:
GIOVANNI CASTELLANOS
Defendant Pro Se
DIN: 68000-054
USP Lee
Jonesville, Virginia 24263
CHIN, Circuit Judge:
On June 9, 2014, defendant Giovanni Castellanos
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1951 and possession of a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
On October 30, 2014, I sentenced him
principally to 240 months' imprisonment on the first count, and
60 months' imprisonment on the second count, to run
consecutively.
On December 10, 2019, I vacated Mr.
Castellanos's count two conviction in light of United States v.
Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019), and United States v.
Barrett, 937 F.3d 126, 127 (2d Cir. 2019).
I also entered an
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 2 of 10
amended judgment reflecting a conviction on count one only and a
revised sentence of 240 months.
(13-cr-40 (DC), Dkt. No. 111).
Proceeding pro se, Mr. Castellanos now moves pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct the amended
judgment, arguing that (1) I erred in failing to also vacate his
count one conviction and (2) his lawyer at the time of his
guilty plea was ineffective for (a) failing to the raise the
crime of violence issue identified in Davis, and (b) advising
him that it was in his best interest to waive the statute of
limitations challenge to his counts of conviction.1
For the
reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.2
BACKGROUND
As set forth in more detail in my 2015 order denying
Mr. Castellanos's first habeas petition, see Dkt. 13-cr-40, No.
102, Mr. Castellanos's convictions stem from his participation
1
Mr. Castellanos did not raise the statute of limitations
argument in his initial petition to this Court, but he raised it in
his petition for leave to file a successive habeas petition with the
Second Circuit, which was transferred back to me as unnecessary in
light of the amended judgment. (See 13-cr-40, Dkt. Nos. 112, 115).
Although Mr. Castellanos has not "request[ed] leave from the district
court to file an amended § 2255 motion" adding this claim, as
instructed by the Second Circuit, Dkt No. 115 at 2, I nonetheless
consider the argument.
2
Because I find that "it plainly appears from the face of
the [§ 2255] motion . . . and the prior proceedings in the case that
[Mr. Castellanos] is not entitled to relief," I do not order the
United States Attorney to file an answer to the instant motion. See
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the U.S. Dist. Courts
4(b); Armienti v. United States, 234 F.3d 820, 822-23 (2d Cir. 2000).
-2-
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 3 of 10
in a 2003 drug-related robbery during which he shot and killed
one of the victims, Souleymane Kane. (PSR ¶¶ 6, 9; Plea Tr. at
16:18-17:1).
On June 9, 2014, Mr. Castellanos pleaded guilty to two
counts, pursuant to a plea agreement: (1) conspiracy to commit
robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and (2) using,
carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to a
crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
(Plea Tr. at 18:5-25, 19:1-2).
Although Mr. Castellanos's
indictment included a charge under 18 U.S.C § 1111(a), which
could have triggered capital punishment under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)
and may be brought at any time, see 18 U.S.C. § 3281, the
charges to which Mr. Castellanos pleaded were not capital
offenses, and consequently carried a five-year statute of
limitations.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3282.
In his plea agreement with
the government, however, Mr. Castellanos agreed to waive a
statute of limitations defense.
(Plea Tr. at 11:8-12).
At the
plea hearing, Mr. Castellanos confirmed his understanding that
in waiving the statute of limitations, he "would not be able to
argue that the government took too much time to charge [him]."
(Plea Tr. at 11:13-17).
On October 30, 2014, I sentenced Mr. Castellanos to a
term of imprisonment of 300 months, followed by three years of
supervised release. (Sent. Tr. at 10:12-19).
-3-
Judgment was
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 4 of 10
entered on October 31, 2014.
Mr. Castellanos did not appeal his
conviction.
On April 17, 2015, proceeding pro se, Mr. Castellanos
moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence on the grounds of ineffective assistance of
counsel.
I denied the petition on July 30, 2015, in part
because I determined that there was ample evidence in the record
supporting Mr. Castellanos's count one conviction. (Dkt. No. 102
at 7).
On November 26, 2019, Mr. Castellanos again moved
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, this time represented by new
counsel and with the consent of the government, "to vacate his
Count Two conviction and 60-month consecutive sentence," in
light of Davis and Barrett.
(Dkt. No. 109).
I granted the
motion on December 10, 2019, and entered an amended judgment
reflecting a conviction on count one only and a 240-month
sentence.
(Dkt. Nos. 110-111).
Proceeding pro se, Castellanos filed the instant
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 on April 2, 2020.
(Dkt. No. 112).
DISCUSSION
Mr. Castellanos's motion is denied.
First, Mr.
Castellanos has failed to show error in my entry of the amended
-4-
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 5 of 10
judgment.
Second, Mr. Castellanos fails to show that his
counsel (at the time of his guilty plea) was ineffective.
A.
The Amended Judgment
Mr. Castellanos first argues that I erred in vacating
only his count two conviction in the amended judgment I entered
on December 10, 2019.
In his motion submitted jointly with the
government on November 26, 2019, however, Mr. Castellanos's new
counsel wrote "the parties agree that this Court should grant
Castellanos's motion, vacate his Count Two conviction and
consecutive 60-month sentence, and enter an amended judgment
reflecting only a conviction on Count One, and a 240-month
sentence."
(Dkt. No. 109 at 2) (emphasis added).
Thus, I
granted Mr. Castellanos precisely the relief he sought.
Moreover, as I stated in my 2015 order denying Mr. Castellanos's
first habeas petition, there was ample evidence in the record to
support Mr. Castellanos's count one conviction.
argument provides no basis for habeas relief.
Thus, this
See United States
v. Wellington, 417 F.3d 284, 290 (2d Cir. 2005) ("[B]ecause
defendant cannot complain of an error that he himself invited,
he is not entitled to relief."); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson,
507 U.S. 619, 633–34 (1993) ("the writ of habeas corpus has
historically been regarded as an extraordinary remedy, a bulwark
against convictions that violate fundamental fairness," and
"[t]hose few who are ultimately successful in obtaining habeas
-5-
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 6 of 10
relief are persons whom society has grievously wronged and for
whom belated liberation is little enough compensation")
(internal quotations and alteration omitted)).
B.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Mr. Castellanos's additional claims to ineffective
assistance of his original counsel also lack merit.
Castellanos
argues that his then-counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to
raise the crime of violence issue identified in Davis at the
time of his guilty plea; and (2) failing to explain the part of
his plea agreement that required him to waive a statute of
limitations challenge to his counts of conviction.
Because
Castellanos cannot show prejudice as to the first ground or
deficient performance as to the second, these arguments fail.
1.
Applicable Law
To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a
petitioner must satisfy the two-pronged test set forth in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
First, "the
defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient,"
and "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness."
at 687-88.
Id.
To prevail, a petitioner must "overcome the
presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action
'might be considered sound trial strategy.'"
Id. at 689
(quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)).
Thus,
"a guilty plea cannot be attacked as based on inadequate legal
-6-
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 7 of 10
advice unless counsel was not 'a reasonably competent attorney'
and the advice was not 'within the range of competence demanded
of attorneys in criminal cases.'"
Id. at 687 (quoting McMann v.
Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770-71 (1970)).
Second, "the defendant must show that the deficient
performance prejudiced the defense."
Id. at 687.
Where a
petitioner's conviction resulted from his own guilty plea, he
must show that "there is a reasonable probability that were it
not for counsel's errors, he would not have pled guilty and
would have proceeded to trial."
United States v. Arteca, 411
F.3d 315, 320 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.
52, 59 (1985)).
2.
Application
Mr. Castellanos first argues that his counsel at
sentencing was ineffective for failing to raise the crime of
violence issue identified in Davis.
This argument fails because
even if the failure of Mr. Castellanos's counsel to identify the
crime of violence issue later held unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court in Davis "fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness," id. at 688, Davis applies only to his count two
conviction, which has since been vacated.
Thus, any deficiency
stemming from this failure has been remedied, and Mr.
Castellanos cannot show prejudice.
-7-
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 8 of 10
Second, Castellanos argues that his counsel was
ineffective for advising him that it was in his best interest to
waive the statute of limitations challenge to his count one
conviction.
See Pet. to Second Circuit at 8.
He contends that
had he not waived the statute of limitations, "he could not have
been convicted in a district court."
(Id.).
Mr. Castellanos's argument reflects a misunderstanding
of the law, as well as the circumstances that led to his plea
conviction.
Before Mr. Castellanos entered into a plea
agreement with the government, he was charged with a murder
count that had no statute of limitations and for which, had he
been convicted at trial, he could have been sentenced to death.
(See Indictment, Dkt. No. 2; see also Dkt. No. 12 (order
appointing capital counsel)).
Instead, by agreeing to waive a
statute of limitations challenge to lesser charges, Mr.
Castellanos was able to obtain a 300-month sentence of
imprisonment which now, in light of an intervening change in the
law, has been reduced to 240 months.
Thus, the advice of Mr.
Castellanos's lawyer that he agree to waive a statute of
limitations challenge in exchange for the removal of the death
penalty as a potential sentence cannot be said, in light of the
evidence of Mr. Castellanos's guilt, to fall outside of "the
range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases."
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 (internal quotation marks omitted);
-8-
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 9 of 10
see also Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401, 404 (2d Cir.
1999) ("A defense lawyer in a criminal case has the duty to
advise his client fully on whether a particular plea to a charge
appears to be desirable." (internal quotation marks and emphasis
omitted)).
Accordingly, because both Castellanos's arguments are
meritless, defense counsel's assistance was objectively
reasonable, and his performance did not prejudice Castellano's
defense.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Castellanos has
failed to show a basis for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Accordingly, his motion for relief is DENIED.
Because
Castellanos has not made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right, I decline to issue a certificate of
appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (as amended by the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act).
I certify
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal taken from
this order would not be taken in good faith.
The Clerk of Court
is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to
Mr. Castellanos to the address listed above.
-9-
Case 1:15-cv-03196-DC Document 8 Filed 10/26/20 Page 10 of 10
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
October 26, 2020
S/ Denny Chin ______________
DENNY CHIN
United States Circuit Judge
Sitting by Designation
- 10 -
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?