Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00994/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00994-0/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

- 1 - 07CV0994

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO SANTANA CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV0994-LAB

[Related Case No. 05cr0410-LAB]

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 MOTION TO VACATE, SET

ASIDE, OR CORRECT

SENTENCE

[Dkt No. 31]

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

In recorded proceedings on July 11, 2005, the undersigned District Judge imposed

on criminal defendant Ricardo Santana Chavez (“Chavez”) a 71-months sentence after he

pled guilty to a single-count indictment accusing him of being a deported alien found in the

United States. The imposition of sentence followed thorough discussion on the record of the

Pre-sentence Report, supplemental Probation Report documents pertaining to prior

convictions, defense counsel's arguments in mitigation regarding reasons for defendant's

illegal entry, the nature and timing of his prior record, statements Chavez made in his own

defense, and the court’s recitation of a series of findings in consideration of the record

pertinent to the application of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. For the reasons recited

on the record, the court denied a defense motion to adjust downward Chavez’s criminal

history score after considering relevant factors and determined the "overriding need for

Case 3:07-cv-00994-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 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

27

28

- 2 - 07CV0994

imposing sentence here is deterrence." Opp. Exh. 4, 12:16-18. Chavez’s 71-months

sentence was at the upper-end of the Guideline range. The court concluded the hearing:

THE COURT: . . . This was a plea without a plea agreement,

right, Mr. Demik?

[Defense Counsel] MR. DEMIK: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Santana, you have a right to appeal the

sentence and judgment of this court. Your notice of appeal must

be filed within ten days of today's date. . . 

R.T. 12:21-13:1.

Defendant appealed. By Memorandum filed October 25, 2006, the Ninth Circuit

affirmed the judgment, finding from a "review of the record, the opening brief and the

opposition to the motion for summary affirmance . . . that the questions raised in this appeal

are so insubstantial as not to require further argument." Dkt No. 30. 

Chavez now collaterally attacks his sentence. He has filed in this court a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence. 

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court

established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released

upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of

the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court

was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the

sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or

is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court

which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the

sentence. . . .

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Chavez first contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing,

asserting his attorney "failed to argue to the court that he should have been enhanced 12

points instead of 16 points for the [prior] drug trafficking offense," whereas "nobody argue[d]

or objected to the imposition of the 16 point enhancement, and the court did not give an

exact explanation." Mot. p. 4. Second, he argues “the court should have sentenced

defendant [to a term less than the guideline maximum] based on the recommendation of the

government, the defense attorney, and the probation officer, because the defendant did

have a valid excuse for having returned to the U.S. and that was because defendant's

Case 3:07-cv-00994-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 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

27

28

1

 Chavez mistakenly argues, supported by no authority, he would have had to serve five

years in prison in order to be deemed an aggravated felon for immigration law purposes. Pet. p. 5.

- 3 - 07CV0994

daughter was seriously ill at that time." Mot. pp. 4-5. The government had recommended

he be sentenced to 64 months in prison (the middle of the Guideline range), and his attorney

recommended the low end or middle range. "The court should reconsider the imposition of

that harsh sentence and re-sentence the defendant to the low end of the guidelines or the

middle of the guidelines range, in the interest of justice," promising the court he "will not

return to this country and instead will have his daughter visit him in Mexico." Mot. p. 5. The

government filed an Opposition to the Motion. Dkt No. 34. Chavez filed no Reply. For the

reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED.

With respect to the Motion Ground One, Chavez’s contention he received ineffective

assistance of counsel at the time of sentencing is without merit. In order to prevail on such

a claim, he had to show (1) his attorney’s performance was deficient, and (2) that deficient

performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-92

(1984). His assertion his counsel failed to argue for a 12-point enhancement or to object to

the 16-point enhancement for his May 6, 1994 drug trafficking offense misstates the record.

Chavez actually acknowledges his counsel “raised the issue in the objection to the pre

sentence report,” but insists his counsel “should have continued to argue that he should

have received 12 enhancement points under the guidelines as established in U.S.S.G. §

2L1.29b)(1)(B).” Pet. p. 5. Defense counsel had filed thorough written Objections to the PreSentence Report and Sentencing Memorandum on June 17, 2005, arguing for the lesser

enhancement, among several other downward departure requests, all of which were

addressed at sentencing. See Opp. Exh. 2. In response to defense counsel’s pre-sentence

report objections, the probation officer supplemented the record of Chavez’s criminal history,

demonstrating the sentence he had received exceeded 13 months, necessarily subjecting

Chavez to a 16-level enhancement for the instant offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. §

2L1.2(b)(1)(A).1 Opp. 5:24-28. At the sentencing hearing, the court confirmed defense

counsel had received a copy of the criminal history documents and opined those documents

Case 3:07-cv-00994-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 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

27

28

- 4 - 07CV0994

resolved the enhancement objections, removing any legal basis for defense counsel to

continue legitimately to argue for the lower level enhancement. Opp. Exh. 4 pp. 5-6. Chavez

cannot prevail on an argument his counsel’s representation was ineffective for thereafter

abandoning that discredited position as somehow prejudicing his defense. Thus, neither

prong of the Strickland test is satisfied because counsel actually made the argument, and

the court properly rejected it.

With respect to the Motion Ground Two, Chavez raises no issue of fact or law

colorably supporting a sentence modification. He simply urges the court to reconsider the

exercise of its discretion in imposing a sentence at the high end of the Sentencing Guideline

range in reliance on his original argument his alleged motivation for illegally reentering the

United States provided a “valid excuse.” Pet. pp. 4-5. A bare request for reconsideration

of a valid sentence imposed within the court’s jurisdiction after due consideration of all the

factors, filings, and arguments from both sides fails to raise any ground warranting

reconsideration or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief.

The court sentenced Chavez within the applicable guideline range. The court

observed Chavez had been convicted in 1998 in this federal court for the very same offense,

having “presented himself at that time at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, told the immigration

inspector he was a U.S. citizen, but it was discovered, of course, that he wasn’t and he had

a criminal history.” Opp. Exh. 4, 7:10-13. The court noted Chavez was sentenced to 70

months for his conviction of that crime, “and now he’s back, convicted of the same offense,

and I can’t come up with a rational reason for going backward on this.” Id. 7:14-17. In

furtherance of the deterrence rationale in the imposition of criminal sentences, the court

selected the upper end of the 57 to 71 months guideline range for the reasons and based

on the calculations recited on the record, observing:

And here I have been looking for a reason to try to go

under the 70 months. I can’t find it. Why would I go backwards

in this case and give him a sentence less severe for the same

offense than the one he received in 1998?

Opp. Exh. 4, 8:3-6.

Case 3:07-cv-00994-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 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

27

28

- 5 - 07CV0994

For all the foregoing reasons, the court finds Chavez has not carried his burden to

demonstrate entitlement to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the

Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 4, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00994-LAB Document 2 Filed 12/04/07 Page 5 of 5