Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06196/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

Petitioner’s guilty plea was made after jury trial had been 1

confirmed and without the execution of a written plea agreement.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6196 OWW

(No. CR-F-02-5313 OWW)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE

OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT

On September 3, 2004, petitioner Martin Rodriguez-Lopez

timely filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Petitioner was charged with one count of being a deported

alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Petitioner pleaded guilty. Petitioner was sentenced on June 13, 1

2003 to 57 months imprisonment. Petitioner appealed his

Case 1:04-cv-06196-OWW Document 2 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

conviction and sentence to the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner’s

conviction and sentence were affirmed on May 7, 2004.

Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel.

Claims asserting the ineffective assistance of counsel are

analyzed under the two-prong test announced in Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). As explained in United States

v. Quintero-Barraza, 78 F.2d 1344, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995), cert.

denied, 519 U.S. 848 (1996):

According to Strickland, there are two

components to an effectiveness inquiry, and

the petitioner bears the burden of

establishing both ... First, the

representation must fall ‘below an objective

standard of reasonableness.’ ... Courts

scrutinizing the reasonableness of an

attorney’s conduct must examine counsel’s

‘overall performance,’ both before and at

trial, and must be highly deferential to the

attorney’s judgments ... In fact, there

exists a ‘strong presumption that counsel

“rendered adequate assistance and made all

significant decisions in the exercise of

reasonable professional judgment.”’ ... In

short, defendant must surmount the

presumption that, ‘under the circumstances,

the challenged action “might be considered

sound trial strategy.”’ ... Thus, the proper

inquiry is ‘whether, in light of all the

circumstances, the identified acts or

omissions were outside the wide range of

professionally competent assistance.’ ....

If the petitioner satisfies the first prong,

he must then establish that there is ‘a

reasonable probability that, but for

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result

would have been different ....’

Where a petitioner enters a guilty plea upon the advice of

counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends upon whether the

Case 1:04-cv-06196-OWW Document 2 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

petitioner received effective assistance of counsel. In order to

prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “the

[petitioner] must show that there is a reasonable probability

that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty

and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart,

474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985).

Petitioner asserts that his right to effective assistance of

counsel was denied because “[d]efense counsel did not advised

[sic] to the Defendant the opportunity to collaterally attack and

challenge his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” 

Petitioner cites no authority and none has been discovered

that defense counsel has any duty to a criminal defendant to

advise him or her of the statutory right to file a Section 2255

motion. Even if such authority exists, petitioner can make no

showing of prejudice because petitioner’s Section 2255 motion is

timely filed. Therefore, petitioner’s motion for relief on this

ground is DENIED.

Petitioner further asserts he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel because “the Defendant’s attorney never

brought the violation of constitutional right of the defendant

based on the 5 Amendment as regards to due process rights of th

the Defendant and the 6 Amendment as regards to the jury th

determination of the enhancement in offense level of the crime

with which the Defendant is charged beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based

on the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542

Case 1:04-cv-06196-OWW Document 2 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

U.S. 296 (2004).

Petitioner’s claim is without merit. Petitioner’s base

offense level was enhanced pursuant to USSG 2L.1(2)(b)(1)(A)

because petitioner had been deported on May 16, 2000, following a

conviction for possession of a controlled substance for sale for

which he received a two year sentence to state prison. A

sentencing enhancement based on a defendant’s prior conviction

does not have to be presented to a jury. Blakely, supra, 542

U.S. at 301; United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052,

1053 (9 Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1130 (2005); United th

States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 415 (9 Cir.2000), cert. th

denied, 532 U.S. 966 (2001). Therefore, petitioner’s claim for

relief on this ground is DENIED.

Petitioner’s related argument that the sentence imposed on

him is unconstitutional because the USSG 2L.1(2)(b)(1)(A) 

enhancement was not admitted by petitioner under oath or

submitted to a jury is equally without merit pursuant to the

cases cited above. Petitioner’s further contention that the

Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional is foreclosed by Ninth

Circuit authority that Blakely v. Washington, supra, and United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) are not retroactive and do

not apply to cases on collateral review where the conviction was

final as of the date of publication of Blakely and Booker. See

United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9 Cir.2005), cert. th

denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1181 (2006); Schardt v. Payne,

414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9 Cir.2005). Petitioner’s motion for th

Case 1:04-cv-06196-OWW Document 2 Filed 08/01/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

relief on this ground is therefore DENIED.

ACCORDINGLY, as set forth above:

1. Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06196-OWW Document 2 Filed 08/01/06 Page 5 of 5