Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00951/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00951-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cr44-LAB-1 and 15cv951-

LAB

ORDER ON MOTION TO VACATE,

SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT

SENTENCE

vs.

ARISTEO ORTIZ-SANCHEZ,

Defendants.

Aristeo Ortiz-Sanchez entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to illegal reentry after

deportation. (Docket no. 15.) In the plea agreement:

C He agreed that he had previously "suffered a felony conviction for Assault with

Firearm on a Person, in violation of California Penal Code, Section 245(a)(2)." (Id. at

3, 9.)

C The parties agreed that each side was free to argue for a Sentencing Guideline

adjustment based on Ortiz's prior conviction. (Id. at 7.)

C The Government agreed to seek a sentence reduction under its Fast Track program. 

(Id. at 2, 7). 

C Ortiz acknowledged that the Government's recommendation would not be binding on

the Court, and that the Court didn't have to follow the parties' sentencing

recommendations. (Id. at 6–7.) 

14cr44 and 15cv951

Case 3:15-cv-00951-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

At the plea hearing, Ortiz again acknowledged that the Court didn't have to follow sentencing

recommendations and confirmed that, other than what the Government promised in the

written plea agreement, no one had promised him anything to get him to plead guilty. 

(Docket no. 38 at 7, 10.)

At the sentencing, the Court applied a 16 level Sentencing Guideline enhancement

based on Ortiz's felony assault conviction. (Docket no. 31 a 17.) The Court also declined

to reduce Ortiz's sentence based on Fast Track. (Id. at 19.)

Ortiz has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate/correct his sentence, arguing: (1)

his counsel misled him to believe he'd receive a sentence reduction under the Fast Track

program and, therefore, he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the Court

erroneously applied a 16 level sentence enhancement without a sufficient factual basis; and

(3) the Court erroneously concluded that his state conviction was for a crime of violence. 

(Docket no. 35 at 6.)

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

A petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must show both (1) deficient

performance under an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) prejudice. Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To demonstrate deficient performance, "[t]he

challenger's burden is to show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not

functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Harrington

v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Reviewing courts

must apply a "strong presumption" that "counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of

reasonable professional assistance." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. To demonstrate prejudice,

the petitioner must show that "but for counsel's unprofessional errors," there is a reasonable

probability "the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694.

When a defendant challenges counsel's effectiveness during a guilty plea, the relevant

inquiry is "whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 14cr44 and 15cv951

Case 3:15-cv-00951-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

alternative courses of action open to the defendant." Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985). 

A petitioner's conclusory allegations that his counsel misled him are insufficient to warrant

habeas relief. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994).

The premise of Ortiz's ineffective assistance claim is that his counsel misled him into

believing that he would get the Fast Track sentence reduction if he signed the plea

agreement. (Docket no. 35 at 6.) But, this argument is belied by the plea agreement and

by Ortiz's testimony during the Rule 11 hearing. See United States v. Adamic, 2006 WL

2507439, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2006) ("[I]n the absence of extraordinary circumstances,

the truth of sworn statements made during a [plea hearing] is conclusively established, and

a district court should, without holding an evidentiary hearing, dismiss any § 2255 motion that

necessarily relies on allegations that contradict the sworn statements."). At that hearing,

Ortiz confirmed he understood that the Court need not accept the Government's sentencing

recommendations, and that he hadn't been promised anything outside of the plea agreement. 

His conclusory allegations made months after the fact don't establish deficient performance,

and, even if they did, any prejudice was alleviated by the admonitions Ortiz received in the

plea agreement and at the plea hearing.

Factual Basis for 16 Point Sentence Enhancement

Ortiz argues that there was no factual basis for the 16 level sentence enhancement. 

(Docket no. 35.) But there was. First, he admitted in the plea agreement that he had a prior

felony conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(2). (Docket no. 15 at 3.) Second, the

Ninth Circuit has ruled that that particular offense is categorically a "crime of violence,"

warranting a 16 level enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.

Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Heron-Salinas, 566 F.3d 898,

899 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Jennen, 596 F.3d 594, 601 (9th Cir. 2010). Contrary

to Ortiz's argument, there was a factual basis for the enhancement.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 3 - 14cr44 and 15cv951

Case 3:15-cv-00951-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Conclusion

Ortiz's motion to vacate/correct his sentence (Docket no. 35) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 6, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cr44 and 15cv951

Case 3:15-cv-00951-LAB Document 2 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 4