Torres-Ruperto v. USA
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez on 10/28/2013. (PMA)
1
22IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
2
3
4
OMAR TORRES RUPERTO,
5
Petitioner
6
v.
7
CIVIL 12-1235 (PG)
(CRIMINAL 10-344 (PG))
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
8
9
10
Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER
11
12
I. INTRODUCTION
13
Petitioner Omar Torres Ruperto, a Police Officer of Puerto Rico employed by
14
the Puerto Rico Department of Corrections, was indicted on October 28, 2010 in
15
nine counts of a 31-count superceding indictment. (Criminal No. 10-344 (PG),
16
17
Docket No. 68). Eighth other defendants were also indicted. As part of a plea
18
agreement, petitioner agreed to enter a plea of guilty as to two counts of the
19
indictment. Petitioner was charged in Count Eleven in that, on or about June 9,
20
2010, in the District of Puerto Rico and elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this
21
22
Court, he and Wendell Rivera Ruperto, aiding and abetting each other, did
23
knowingly and intentionally attempt to possess with intent to distribute five
24
kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
25
cocaine, a Schedule II Controlled Substance. All in violation of Title 21 United
26
States Code Section 846 and 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and Title 18 United
27
28
States Code Section 2. (Criminal No. 10-344 (PG), Docket No. 68 at 7). Count
1
2
CIVIL 12-1235 (PG)
(CRIMINAL 10-344 (PG))
2
3
Thirteen of the Superceding Indictment charges that on or about June 9, 2010,
4
5
in the District of Puerto Rico and elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this court,
6
petitioner did knowingly possess a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
7
crime as defined in Title 18 United States Code Section 924(c)(2), that is, a
8
violation of Title 21 United States Code Section 841(a)(1) and 846, involving a
9
10
conspiracy and attempt to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more
11
of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, a Schedule
12
II Controlled Substance, as charged in Counts Ten and Eleven of the Indictment
13
herein, either of which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, all in
14
15
violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 924(c)(1)(A).
In summary,
16
petitioner and others would provide armed protection for the seller in a drug
17
transaction (which actually involved sham cocaine) on behalf of a person they
18
believed was a drug trafficker.
19
20
Petitioner pleaded guilty to Counts Eleven and Thirteen of the Superceding
21 Indictment on April 28, 2011. Following the recommendation of the parties, the
22 court sentenced petitioner on August 9, 2011 to eighty-four months imprisonment
23 in Count Eleven and sixty months imprisonment in Count Thirteen, to be served
24
consecutively as required by the law. (Criminal No. 10-344 (PG), Docket Nos. 224,
25
225, 251). No notice of appeal was filed.
26
27
28
1
2
CIVIL 12-1235 (PG)
(CRIMINAL 10-344 (PG))
3
3
This matter is before the court on petitioner Omar Torres-Ruperto’s timely
4
5
but meritless motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C.
6 § 2255, filed on April 5, 2012. (Docket No. 1.)
Petitioner argues five points: 1)
7 the indictment failed to state a crime; 2) right-to-confrontation deficiencies at the
8
arraignment; 3) Fifth Amendment violation because the arraignment was
9
10
conducted by a “mere magistrate judge lacking authority...” to determine the
11 sufficiency of the indictment; 4) this is a variation on the theme of ground two; 5)
12 there was a Speedy Trial Act violation and no excusable time existed. (Docket No.
13
1-2 at 4-5). The 12-page motion is accompanied by an affidavit incorporating the
14
15
points raised, as well as a 6-page memorandum of law, which is half law and half
16 allegations.
17
18
In the government’s 13-page response dated May 25, 2012, it stresses that
petitioner makes no specific reference to the record and that therefore, the claims
19
20
are conclusory in nature, undeveloped, and should be summarily dismissed. But
21 the government also notes that none of the claims were first presented for direct
22 review by way of appeal and that therefore petitioner has engaged in procedural
23 default as to all of them. (Docket No. 3).
24
On June 11, 2102, petitioner filed a 6-page reply to the government’s
25
response, accompanied by a five page abridged memorandum of law. (Docket No.
26
27 4).
28
He argues that his affidavit has not been rebutted, repeats much of his
1
2
CIVIL 12-1235 (PG)
(CRIMINAL 10-344 (PG))
4
3
argument, attacks the court’s jurisdiction, accuses the United States Attorney of
4
5
6
committing fraud on the court, and demands a hearing.
The arguments of the parties having been considered, and the record having
7 been reviewed, it is clear that petitioner’s argument are devoid of any plausible
8
merit, and that he has engaged in procedural default. Therefore the motion to
9
10
vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is DENIED without evidentiary hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
11
12
13
Under section 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner may move for post
conviction relief if:
14
15
16
17
18
the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence
was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is
otherwise subject to collateral attack. . . .
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426-27 n.3, 82 S.Ct. 468
19
20
(1962); David v. United States, 134 F.3d 470, 474 (1st Cir. 1998); Torres-
21 Santiago v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 2d 168, 184 (D.P.R. 2012).
The burden
22 is on the petitioner to show his entitlement to relief under section 2255, David v.
23 United States, 134 F.3d at 474, including his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.
24
Cody v. United States, 249 F.3d 47, 54 (1st Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v.
25
McGill, 11 F.3d 223, 225 (1st Cir. 1993)); Perocier-Morales v. United States, 887
26
27 F. Supp. 2d 399, 415 (D.P.R. 2012). It has been held that an evidentiary hearing
28
1
2
CIVIL 12-1235 (PG)
(CRIMINAL 10-344 (PG))
5
3
is not necessary if the 2255 motion is inadequate on its face or if, even though
4
5
facially adequate, “is conclusively refuted as to the alleged facts by the files and
6 records of the case.” United States v. McGill, 11 F.3d at 226 (quoting Moran v.
7 Hogan, 494 F.2d 1220, 1222 (1st Cir. 1974)). “In other words, a ‘§ 2255 motion
8
may be denied without a hearing as to those allegations which, if accepted as true,
9
10
entitle the movant to no relief, or which need not be accepted as true because they
11 state conclusions instead of facts, contradict the record, or are ‘inherently
12 incredible.’” United States v. McGill, 11 F.3d at 226 (quoting Shraiar v. United
13
States, 736 F.2d 817, 818 (1st Cir. 1984)); Perocier-Morales v. United States, 887
14
15
16
F. Supp. 2d at 415.
The matter of procedural default cannot be ignored since petitioner’s motion
17 reads more like an appellate brief than it does a garden-variety collateral attack.
18
See United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784, 99 S.Ct. 2085 (1979).
19
20
21
22
23
24
A significant bar on habeas corpus relief is imposed when a prisoner
did not raise claims at trial or on direct review. In such cases, a court
may hear those claims for the first time on habeas corpus review only
if the petitioner has “cause” for having procedurally defaulted his
claims, and if the petitioner suffered “actual prejudice” from the error
of which he complains.
United States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp.2d 202, 220 (D.Mass. 2011), citing
25
26
Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48, 56 (1st Cir. 2007), also citing Oakes v.
st
27 United States, 400 F.3d 92, 95 (1 Cir. 2005) (“If a federal habeas petitioner
28
1
2
CIVIL 12-1235 (PG)
(CRIMINAL 10-344 (PG))
6
3
challenges his conviction or sentence on a ground that he did not advance on
4
5
direct appeal, his claim is deemed procedurally defaulted.”)
To obtain collateral
6 relief in this case, petitioner must show cause excusing his double procedural
7 default and actual prejudice resulting from the errors he is complaining about.
8
See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68, 102 S. Ct. 1584, 1594 (1982);
9
10
Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2011). Ineffective assistance of
11 counsel can clearly supply the cause element of the cause and prejudice standard.
12 See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986), cited in Bucci v. United States,
13
662 F.3d at 29.
However, petitioner has failed to show that defense counsel’s
14
15
representation was constitutionally ineffective.
In fact, petitioner is silent as to
16 the conduct of his attorney and focuses his collateral attack on the actions of the
17 prosecution and the errors of the court. Therefore, petitioner’s argument suffers
18
from double procedural default, that is, failure to raise any of these issues before
19
20
at the trial level, and failure to raise them on appeal. See United States v. Frady,
21 456 U.S. at 167-68, 102 S. Ct. 1584; Vega-Colon v. United States, 463 F. Supp.
22 2d 146, 150 (D.P.R. 2006).
23
24
It is hornbook law that “. . .the voluntariness and intelligence of a guilty plea
can be attacked on collateral review only if first challenged on direct review.
25
26
Habeas review is an extraordinary remedy and ‘will not be allowed to do service
27 for an appeal.’” Bousely v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621, 118 S. Ct. 1604,
28
1
2
CIVIL 12-1235 (PG)
(CRIMINAL 10-344 (PG))
7
3
1610 (1998); see Casas v. United States, 576 F. Supp. 2d 226, 323 (D.P.R. 2008).
4
5
The sentencing court generally informs defendants that they can appeal the
6 conviction if the guilty plea was somehow unlawful or involuntary or if there was
7 some other fundamental defect in the proceedings that was not waived by the
8
guilty plea. In this case, since petitioner was sentenced in accordance with the
9
10
plea agreement which included a valid and enforceable waiver of appeal clause, he
11 was not advised of his right to appeal the judgment and sentence. (Criminal No.
12 10-344 (PG), Docket No. 495, S.T. at 8).
13
Finally, a perusal of the substance of the arguments reveals their lack of
14
15
merit. The superceding indictment carries no fatal errors. The arraignment does
16 not include a confrontational process other than to present the charging document
17 to the defendant and inform him in a formal setting of the charges he faces. The
18
authority of the United States magistrate judge is beyond question. And finally,
19
20
21
22
a computation of time reveals that there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act.
III. CONCLUSION
Because petitioner appears pro se, his pleadings are considered more
23 liberally, however inartfully or opaquely pleaded, than those penned and filed by
24
an attorney. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007).
25
Clearly, district court are required to heed the decades-old directive that judges
26
27 are to hold pro se complaints “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
28
1
2
CIVIL 12-1235 (PG)
(CRIMINAL 10-344 (PG))
8
3
drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972).
4
5
This liberality has its limit and this motion has reached them.
See Bell Atlantic
6 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-67, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Petitioner has
7 raised meritless points supported by generic, conclusory, unsupported, rote
8
statements of law that lend no support to his argument. Docket No. 4 at 4, 4-1
9
10
at 2-2.
Petitioner entered into a plea agreement and received the sentence he
11 anticipated.
The waiver of appeal was intelligently made.
Petitioner’s claims
12 have been procedurally defaulted and he has failed to show cause for the default
13
and actual prejudice resulting from the alleged errors.
14
15
In view of the above, the motion to vacate, set aside or correct petitioner’s
16 sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED without evidentiary hearing. The
17 clerk is to enter judgment accordingly.
18
Based upon my reasoning above, no certificate of appealability should be
19
20
issued in the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, because there is no
21 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of
22 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct.
23 1029 (2003).
24
In San Juan Puerto Rico this 28th day of October, 2013.
25
26
27
28
S/ JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ
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?