Morales v. USA
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) (Criminal Number 08-CR-0357 (7)(JAF)) filed by Miledy Morales-Guillen. Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, summary dismissal is in order because it plainly appears from the record that Petitioner is not entitled to § 2255 relief from this court. Morales-Guillen may request a COA directly from the First Circuit, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. Judgment to be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 8/7/2013.(mrj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
1
2
3
4
MILEDY MORALES-GUILLÉN,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 11-2171 (JAF)
v.
(Crim. No. 08-357-07)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
5
6
OPINION AND ORDER
7
Petitioner, Miledy Morales-Guillén, brings this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
8
for relief from sentencing by a federal court, alleging that the sentence imposed violated
9
her rights under federal law. She requests an order to vacate, set aside, or correct the
10
sentence imposed in Cr. No. 08-357-7. (Docket No. 1.)
11
I.
12
Background
13
On October 29, 2008, the grand jury rendered a two-count indictment against
14
Miledy Morales-Guillén and six co-defendants. (Crim. Docket No. 17.) Count One
15
charged Defendants with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or
16
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine in violation of
17
21 U.S.C. §§841 and 846. (Id.) Count Two charged them with a conspiracy to import
18
into the United States five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a
19
detectable amount of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. (Id.)
20
Pursuant to a plea agreement, on January 20, 2009, Morales-Guillén pled guilty to Count
21
One of the indictment. (Crim. Docket No. 106.) The plea agreement recommended a
Civil No. 11-2171 (JAF)
-2-
1
sentence of eighty-seven months. (Id.) On May 13, 2009, we sentenced Morales-Guillén
2
to an imprisonment term of one-hundred thirty-five months; Count Two was dismissed,
3
as provided by the plea agreement. (Crim. Docket No. 149.) Morales-Guillén appealed
4
and, on September 8, 2010, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed her sentence.
5
United States v. Morales-Guillén, Appeal No. 09-1831 (1st Cir. September 8, 2010). On
6
December 7, 2011, she filed this petition, asserting two grounds of relief related to the
7
plea agreement she accepted. (Docket No. 1.) The government opposed. (Docket
8
No. 3.)
9
II.
10
Legal Standard
11
A federal district court has jurisdiction to entertain a § 2255 petition when the
12
petitioner is in custody under the sentence of a federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A
13
federal prisoner may challenge her sentence on the ground that, inter alia, it “was
14
imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id. A petitioner
15
cannot be granted relief on a claim that has not been raised at trial or direct appeal, unless
16
she can demonstrate both cause and actual prejudice for his procedural default. See
17
United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167 (1982). Indeed, “[p]ostconviction relief on
18
collateral review is an extraordinary remedy, available only on a sufficient showing of
19
fundamental unfairness.” Singleton v. United States, 26 F.3d 233, 236 (1st Cir. 1994).
20
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, however, are exceptions to this rule. See
21
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 123 (2003) (holding that failure to raise
22
ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal does not bar subsequent § 2255
23
review).
Civil No. 11-2171 (JAF)
-3-
1
As mentioned in a recent holding, we are concerned with the rights of litigants, but
2
we must protect the integrity of the federal court system against meritless allegations.
3
Lassalle-Velázquez v. United States, No. 12-1795, 2013 U.S. Dist. WL ____, at *__ (D.P.R.
4
June 10, 2013) (using meritless arguments to collaterally challenge federal convictions
5
through § 2255 petitions is overburdening federal district courts and leading to some criminal
6
cases being entirely re-litigated).
7
III.
8
Discussion
9
Morales-Guillén asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and
10
prosecutorial misconduct related to the plea agreement she accepted. To prevail on an
11
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, movant must show that (1) counsel’s performance
12
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable
13
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been
14
different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674
15
(1984).
16
assistance. Id.
17
18
19
20
A.
21
recommended sentence of eighty-seven months contained within the plea agreement.
22
(Docket No. 1 at 4-5.) She further asserts that she “blindly” accepted the plea offer, (Id.
23
at 5), arguing that her attorney did not discuss certain matters with her, including: Her
24
role, the quantity of drugs at issue, the sentencing guidelines, and her right to a fair trial.
25
(Id.) She also states that counsel was ineffective because of the failure to discuss or
26
present “inculpatory evidence.”
Both prongs of the Strickland test must be met to demonstrate ineffective
Counsel was not ineffective based on the advice given to the petitioner as to
the plea agreement
Morales-Guillén claims that counsel was ineffective because we did not follow the
(Id. at 5-6.)
Finally, Morales-Guillén argues that
Civil No. 11-2171 (JAF)
-4-
1
counsel was ineffective because she “relayed [sic] solely in [sic] hearsay statements made
2
by the [Assistant U.S. Attorney.]” (Id. at 6.)
3
The first issue was raised and considered on appeal. United States v. Morales-
4
Guillén, Appeal No. 09-1831 (1st Cir. September 8, 2010). On appeal, the First Circuit
5
held that there was “no error” in this court’s “application of section 5K1.1” and that “the
6
plea agreement was not binding on the court.” Id. The First Circuit has held that when
7
an issue has been disposed of on direct appeal, it will not be reviewed again through a
8
§ 2255 motion. Singleton v. United States, 26 F.3d 233, 240 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing
9
Dirring v. United States, 370 F.2d 862, 863 (1st Cir. 1967)). The Supreme Court has held
10
that if a claim “was raised and rejected on direct review, the habeas court will not
11
readjudicate it absent countervailing equitable considerations.” Withrow v. Williams,
12
507 U.S. 680, 721 (1993).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The record indicates that Morales-Guillén understood that the court was not bound
by the sentencing recommendations:
THE COURT:
Very well. Every person who pleads has an
expectation of sentence and usually a sentencing
recommendation may be included in the Plea
Agreement. I should tell you that the Court is not
bound to follow any particular expectation that you
may have, nor any particular recommendation that
may have been made.
Is that understood?
THE DEFENDANTS:
THE COURT:
Yes, as to all.
The point is that the Court retains full sentencing
discretion. And of course any sentence imposed can
be appealed unless there is a waiver of the right to
appeal.
Is that understood?
Civil No. 11-2171 (JAF)
THE DEFENDANTS:
-5Yes, as to all.
1
2
3
(Crim. Docket No. 169 at 18.) In her motion, Morales-Guillén acknowledges that the
4
agreement “established that the ultimate sentence was within the sound discretion of the
5
. . . judge.” (Docket No. 1 at 6.)
6
It is well established that defense counsel communicate plea offers to his client.
7
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1408 (2012). Where a plea bargain has been offered,
8
“a defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel in considering whether to
9
accept it.” Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1387 (2012).
10
One way of determining whether a defendant has received the benefit of counsel is
11
to look to their declarations in court. A defendant’s “declarations in open court carry a
12
strong presumption of verity.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). The
13
record shows that Morales-Guillén discussed the case with counsel and was satisfied with
14
her lawyer’s work:
15
THE COURT:
You have discussed this case with your lawyer?
16
MS. MORALES-GUILLÉN:
17
18
19
20
21
THE COURT:
Are you satisfied with the work that your
lawyer’s doing for you?
22
(Docket No. 169 at 11.) Thus, with regard to advising her client about accepting the plea
23
bargain, counsel was effective.
MS. MORALES-GUILLÉN:
Yes.
Yes, sir.
24
Morales-Guillén’s attorney attempted to secure a sentence well below the
25
guideline minimum. Even though counsel did not achieve the sentence Morales-Guillén
26
desired, the sentence she ultimately received was lenient, given the nature of her crime
27
and the role that she played. In fact, in affirming her sentence, the First Circuit explained
Civil No. 11-2171 (JAF)
-6-
1
that the sentence we imposed was “100 months shorter than the minimum sentence
2
recommended by the guidelines.” United States v. Morales-Guillén, Appeal No. 09-1831
3
(1st Cir. September 8, 2010). There is nothing counsel could have done for Morales-
4
Guillén to receive a shorter sentence than she did.
5
6
7
8
B.
9
underline, subscribed [sic] and present defendant’s plea agreement, in order for it to be
10
accepted by the Honorable Court, accordingly [sic] with the law and what was
11
represented to the defendant . . . ” (Docket No. 1 at 6.) In her motion, Morales-Guillén
12
includes portions of the transcript from her sentencing hearing to support the argument
13
that ineffective counsel and prosecutorial misconduct resulted in the sentence that did not
14
follow the eighty-seven-month recommendation of the U.S. Attorney.
The conduct of counsel and the prosecutor with regard to the plea agreement
did not result in a violation of Morales-Guillén’s rights
Morales-Guillén argues that her lawyer and the U.S. attorney “failed to properly
15
We reiterate that “while a government motion is a necessary precondition to a
16
downward departure based on a defendant's substantial assistance, the docketing of such
17
a motion does not bind a sentencing court to abdicate its responsibility, stifle its
18
independent judgment, or comply blindly with the prosecutor's wishes.” United States v.
19
Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1155 (1st Cir. 1993). Morales-Guillén is right to point out that
20
we were displeased with the manner in which the U.S. Attorney presented the terms of
21
the plea agreement. (Docket No. 1 at 9.) We, therefore, exercised our discretion to
22
impose a sentence that comported more closely with the guidelines.
23
The remaining question is whether the prosecutor’s conduct deprived Morales-
24
Guillén of her rights. Any error made by the prosecutor was prudential in nature—
25
Morales-Guillén’s rights were not affected by the prosecutor or by the substance of the
Civil No. 11-2171 (JAF)
-7-
1
plea negotiations. The sentence she received was quite lenient and fell well below the
2
guideline minimum.
3
nonjurisdictional defects.” Any v. United States, 47 F.3d 1156, at *4 (1st Cir. 1995)
4
(citing United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989); Valencia v. United States, 923
5
F.2d 917, 920 (1st Cir. 1991)). In Any, the First Circuit held that because the defendant
6
“made no persuasive argument that actions by the prosecution rendered his guilty plea
7
involuntary, his claims based on prosecutorial misconduct [were] foreclosed.”
8
Morales-Guillén voluntarily accepted the guilty plea; accordingly, any claims she raises
9
now based on prosecutorial misconduct related to her plea agreement are baseless.
Furthermore, a “knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives all
Id.
10
“We can well understand that petitioner does not enjoy [her] incarceration.
11
However, a § 2255 proceeding is a collateral remedy available to a petitioner only when
12
some basic fundamental right is denied, and not as routine review at the behest of a
13
defendant who is dissatisfied with his sentence.” Dirring v. United States, 370 F.2d 862,
14
865 (1st Cir. 1967). Morales-Guillén has made no argument that would indicate that her
15
rights have been denied.
16
IV.
17
18
19
Certificate of Appealability
In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, whenever
20
issuing a denial of § 2255 relief we must concurrently determine whether to issue a
21
certificate of appealability (“COA”). We grant a COA only upon “a substantial showing
22
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing,
23
“[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's
24
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
25
U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). While
Civil No. 11-2171 (JAF)
-8-
1
Morales-Guillén has not yet requested a COA, we see no way in which a reasonable jurist
2
could find our assessment of her constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Morales-
3
Guillén may request a COA directly from the First Circuit, pursuant to Rule of Appellate
4
Procedure 22.
5
V.
6
Conclusion
7
For the foregoing reasons, we hereby DENY Petitioner’s § 2255 motion (Docket
8
No. 1). Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, summary
9
dismissal is in order because it plainly appears from the record that Petitioner is not
10
entitled to § 2255 relief from this court.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 7th day of August, 2013.
13
14
15
S/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
U. S. 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?