Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00019/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00019-1/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

EMILIO REYES-BOSQUE,

Movant,

CASE NOS. 12-CV-0019-BEN

 05-CR-2239-BEN-1

ORDER AFTER REMAND, AND

AFTER EVIDENTIARY HEARING,

DENYING MOTION TO VACATE,

SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A

SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Before this Court is a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside,

or Correct a Sentence filed by Movant Emilio Reyes-Bosque. For the reasons stated

below, the Motion is DENIED.

On April 21, 2016, an evidentiary hearing was held at which both Movant

and his attorney testified. The findings of fact and conclusions of law announced at

the conclusion of that evidentiary hearing, as well as those found in this Court’s

previous Order denying the § 2255 motion (filed January 14, 2014), are adopted in

full and incorporated herein. Because the full findings and reasoning are set out in

these prior proceedings, only the salient points are emphasized here.

Movant claims his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to

communicate a plea bargain offer from the government. The actual claim has

changed three times over the course of the proceedings. In the original motion, he

- 1 - 12cv19/05cr2239

Case 3:12-cv-00019-BEN Document 4 Filed 06/03/16 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

claimed that his attorney completely failed to communicate a June 7, 2007 plea

bargain offer for a sentence of 37 months. See Motion (Jan. 3, 2012) at 3. After the

Government filed its response, Movant filed a reply. In the reply, Movant changed

the claim to allege that his attorney failed to communicate that the plea bargain was

unconditional, i.e., that the bargain did not require Movant to testify for the

Government in another case. See Reply (Sept. 11, 2012) at 1-2. Finally, at the

evidentiary hearing, Movant again changed his claim to allege that, even if his

attorney did communicate the plea bargain offer, and even if his attorney did

communicate that the bargain did not require testifying for the Government, his

attorney did not accurately communicate the potential life sentence penalty if

convicted. He asserts that he was prejudiced by this failure, because had he known

that he was facing a possible life sentence, he would have accepted the plea offer

rather than risk a trial. See Motion for Certificate of Appealability (May 11, 2016)

at 8-9. 

As this Court found at the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Siddell, Esq., Movant’s

attorney at that time, did communicate to Movant the government’s plea bargain

offer. Siddell did communicate to Movant that the plea bargain offer did not require

testifying for the Government in another case. And Siddell did communicate that

the potential sentence, if tried and convicted, would be a lot more time. 

Siddell could not have known exactly what the possible sentence length

would be if tried and convicted because the plea offer was made prior to a

superceding indictment. At the time of the plea offer, the possible sentence was a

Sentencing Guidelines range of a minimum of five years. The Government’s plea

offer letter explained that if the plea was not accepted, it would seek a superceding

indictment with a possible sentence of 135 months to 168 months. 

The Court finds that Movant rejected the plea bargain offer in spite of any

possible lengthy sentence. Movant rejected the plea bargain offer because, as he

told Mr. Siddell, Movant did not believe that anyone in his alien-smuggling

- 2 - 12cv19/05cr2239

Case 3:12-cv-00019-BEN Document 4 Filed 06/03/16 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

organization would testify against him at trial. Consequently, the claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel is not supported by the evidence. 

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of ineffective

performance and legal prejudice. To prove the performance prong of an ineffective

assistance claim, one must prove that counsel failed to communicate a formal offer

from the prosecution of a plea bargain that may be favorable to the accused. 

Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1408 (2012). To prove legal prejudice from

ineffective assistance of counsel where a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected

because of counsel’s deficient performance, one must prove “a reasonable

probability they would have accepted the earlier plea offer had they been afforded

effective assistance of counsel.” Id. at 1409. Neither was proven here. 

Simply put, Movant’s testimony is not credible. Mr. Siddell’s testimony is

credible. Therefore, the Court finds that Movant cannot show that his counsel was

deficient, nor that Movant was prejudiced. Therefore, Movant’s Motion to Vacate,

Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence is DENIED.

Movant has moved for a certificate of appealability. A court may issue a

certificate of appealability where the movant has made a “substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right,” and reasonable jurists could debate whether the

motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues presented deserve

encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335

(2003). Movant makes a good argument that there are debatable issues about what

constitutes effective assistance of counsel as to how a plea bargain offer is

communicated and discussed with a defendant. However, there are no debatable

issues as to the lack of legal prejudice to a defendant who, as Movant did here,

rejects an offer because he is convinced that no member of his criminal organization

will testify in court against him. As both the performance and prejudice prongs

must be proven to merit § 2255 relief, Movant has not made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. This Court finds that Movant has not made

- 3 - 12cv19/05cr2239

Case 3:12-cv-00019-BEN Document 4 Filed 06/03/16 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

the necessary showing. A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 3, 2016

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv19/05cr2239

Case 3:12-cv-00019-BEN Document 4 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 4