Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Solorio-Gonzalez v. United States

March 27, 2008

ANTONIO SOLORIO-GONZALEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. No. 88.)

Petitioner Antonio Solorio-Gonzalez, proceeding through counsel, has filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 from his January, 2004conviction for one count of bringing in an illegal alien for financial gain and one count of bringing in an illegal alien without presentation. (Doc. No. 88.) On November 7, 2007, the Court ordered respondent to show cause why petitioner's motion should not be granted. On December 10, 2007, respondent filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 91.) Petitioner did not file a reply. For the following reasons, the Court denies petitioner's motion.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was arrested at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on October 7, 2002 when an inspection of the van he was driving revealed an adult male concealed in a storage space in the ceiling. (Petitioner's Memorandum In Support Of Motion at 5.) By indictment of October 23, 2002, the Grand Jury charged petitioner with one count of bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain and one count of bringing in illegal aliens without presentation. (Doc. No. 6.) Initially, Adam M. Ruben represented petitioner and Assistant United States Attorney Jennifer DeTrani represented the government. AUSA DeTrani offered to drop the two counts of bringing in illegal aliens in exchange for petitioner's substantial assistance and a guilty plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545, bringing merchandise into the United States without declaring it to an immigration officer. (Memo. ISO Motion at 5.) Prior to providing AUSA DeTrani with any information, petitioner signed a written "proffer agreement." The agreement stated the government had made no promises regarding alternative disposition or sentencing recommendation. (Id. at 6.) Petitioner then had "at least two" meetings with the government in which he provided addresses, license plates, and names of other individuals who he claimed were involved in alien smuggling. (Id.) Between the first and second meetings, Sylvia A. Baiz substituted in as defense counsel for Mr. Ruben, and sent the government at least one letter offering the government additional information from her client. (AUSA DeTrani Memorandum, Doc. No. 91-2.) After these meetings, AUSA DeTrani left the United States Attorney's Office. Ms. Baiz asked Damon Forney, the new AUSA on the case, if the "deal" was still on the table. AUSA Forney, assuming Ms. Baiz was referring to the "standard deal," a guilty plea to one of the two charged offenses, said yes. (Memo. ISO Motion at 6.) When he learned Ms. Baiz actually meant a plea to a violation of Section 545, AUSA Forney contacted Ms. Baiz to say this offer was not authorized by the AUSA DeTrani's supervisors at the U.S. Attorney's Office. (Id.)

Ms. Baiz filed a motion for specific enforcement of the AUSA DeTrani's plea offer or the offer mistakenly affirmed by AUSA Forney. The Court denied the motion at a hearing on September 8, 2003. (Doc. No. 38.) Ms. Baiz then moved for reconsideration, and after a second hearing on October 6, 2003, the Court again denied the motion. (Doc. No. 42.)

After a two-day trial, the jury found petitioner guilty of both counts on January 7, 2004. On May 17, 2004, the Court denied petitioner's motion for downward departures and sentenced petitioner to 36 months of custody for each count, to run concurrently, and supervised release for three years as to each count, to run concurrently. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction in an unpublished decision on July 5, 2006. U.S. v. Solorio-Gonzalez, 188 F. App'x 631 (9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court denied petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari on November 6, 2006. On November 5, 2007, petitioner filed the instant motion.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court may vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence which was "imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States." To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show: (1) that counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The proper measure of attorney performance is "simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms." Id. at 688. In determining whether counsel's errors prejudiced the defense, the court must consider whether "the defendant has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors." Id. at 696.

Petitioner's Claims

1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel -- The Proffer Agreement

First, petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel from Mr. Ruben. He argues Mr. Ruben should have obtained the Section 545 offer in writing and should not have advised petitioner to sign the proffer agreement because it undermined the enforceability of the Section 545 offer. Petitioner argues he was prejudiced by these failures because the Court later denied his motion to specifically enforce the 545 offer.

Petitioner's claim of prejudice relies on a mischaracterization of the record. Petitioner argues the Court would have enforced AUSA DeTrani's offer of a plea to a violation of Section 545 if it had been in writing or it the proffer agreement had not been signed. This is not the case. The record indicates the supervisors at the United States Attorney's Office would not have approved the offer. (Forney Decl. In Opposition to Motion to Compel Specific Performance, Peak Decl., and Lasater Decl., Doc. No. 41.) The Court would not have accepted a guilty plea to a violation of Section 545 because there was no factual basis for such a plea.*fn1 The Court also found petitioner had not detrimentally relied on the 545 offer for reasons other than his disclaimer of reliance in the proffer agreement. The Court stated: "As far as any prejudice to the defendant, he hasn't pled guilty. He can go to trial in this case. He doesn't have to take the witness stand. So he doesn't have to perjure himself. The government can't use any of this information against him, and I wouldn't let them. He's just trying to get out from under the smuggling case." (Memo. ISO Motion, Ex. C at 13.)*fn2 Counsel would not have been able to obtain a written offer for a Section 545 plea because AUSA DeTrani's supervisors would not have approved the offer. Even if a written plea ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.