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.

United States of America v. Francisco Huato Sanchez

June 17, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT,
v.
FRANCISCO HUATO SANCHEZ, MOVANT.



FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Movant has filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Movant claims that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that movant's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.*fn1 Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, it is recommended that respondent's motion to dismiss be granted and that movant's section 2255 motion be dismissed as untimely.

I. Procedural History

On September 13, 2007, a federal grand jury indicted movant on a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), alleging that he knowingly and intentionally manufactured at least 1,000 marijuana plants, a Schedule I controlled substance. Dckt. No. 6. The court appointed an Assistant Federal Defender to represent movant. Dckt No. 3. On September 4, 2007, movant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. Dckt. No. 8. On March 4, 2008, upon movant's request for new counsel, the court relieved the Assistant Federal defender and appointed a new attorney to represent movant. Dckt. Nos. 25, 26.

On March 11, 2008, movant changed his plea of not guilty and entered a new plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Dckt. Nos. 30, 32. On May 13, 2008,*fn2 the court entered a judgment consistent with the plea agreement of the parties, and movant was sentenced to the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for a 120-month term of imprisonment. Dckt. Nos. 35, 36.

On December 22, 2010, movant on his own behalf filed a section 2255 motion with this court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Dckt. No. 38 ("Movant's Motion"). Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on May 26, 2010. Dckt. No. 42. Movant filed an opposition to respondent's motion on July 19, 2010. Dckt. No. 44 ("Movant's Opp'n").

II. Movant's Claims

Movant seeks relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. He argues that his counsel "failed to investigate and review discovery material" or to "advise movant that evidence was unavailable that he manufactured marijuana plaints." Movant's Motion at 4.*fn3 Movant asserts that he informed his counsel that he was hired as a labor worker not knowing that the work included watering marijuana plaints, and that the plants were fully grown when he began working at the ranch. Id. Movant also claims to have believed that watering marijuana plants was legal. Id. at 8. According to movant, counsel coerced him into pleading guilty and did not advise him that ten years imprisonment was the mandatory minimum penalty for the crime. Id. at 4.Movant also asserts that he had an alibi defense that counsel did not consider or investigate, and that he was only guilty of being an "accessory after the fact that [the] marijuana [had]been manufactured." Id. at 5.

III. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

Respondent argues that the pending motion should be dismissed because movant failed to file his motion within one year from the entry of final judgment as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) provides as follows:

(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by government action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through ...


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.