Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02149/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

. FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

M.~ Y 2 :~ 1990 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) llOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

TONY 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

MICHAEL MORALES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2149 

(D.C. No. 87-ll0lM) 

(D. N.M) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, ANDERSON, and TACBA, Circuit Judges. 

This appeal is from a district court order denying defendant 

Morales' motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2255. Defendant appeals on the grounds 

that the district court erred in finding that defendant had been 

advised sufficiently of the consequences of his guilty plea 

including the special parole term and further that the district 

court erred in determining that defendant had received effective 

assistance of counsel. 

Defendant Morales pled guilty to distribution of marijuana in 

violation of 21 u.s.c. S 84l(a)(l) and 18 u.s.c. S 2. Defendant 

was represented by counsel during the plea negotiations. At the 

sentencing hearing, the court informed defendant of the potential 

sentence in the following colloquy: 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2149 Document: 01019970268 Date Filed: 05/22/1990 Page: 1 
THE COURT: The penalty involved is five (5) years 

and/or fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). Because of 

your age, there is a possibility that the sentencing 

judge might consider you under the Youth Corrections 

Act. You could possibly be in custody for a period of 

six (6) years or under supervision for a period of six 

(6) years. This particular offense requires a minimum 

of two (2) years special parole, which attaches 

automatically to the sentence. There might be a maximum 

parole of lifetime. Is there no question that this 

might have been a second offense? 

MR. GOMEZ: Your Honor, there is no question that this 

is a second offense. 

THE COURT: Have you been advised what the penalty might 

be in connection with this matter? 

MR. MORALES: Yes, Sir. 

THE COURT: You have discussed this with him, Mr. Evans? 

MR. EVANS: Yes~ Sir, I have. 

(ROA, Vol. II, pg. 5) 

Defendant now alleges that he was confused about the application 

of the special parole term because he thought that the special 

parole term applied only if he was sentenced under the Youth 

Corrections Act. Defendant further alleges that he was denied 

effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to 

inform him of the possibility of a special parole term. The 

record contains ample facts to support the district court's 

finding that defendant was adequately informed of the possibility 

of a special parole term and that his counsel had discussed the 

special parole term with him. We cannot say that the district 

court was clearly erroneous in denying the defendant's motion. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2149 Document: 01019970268 Date Filed: 05/22/1990 Page: 2