Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01120/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01120-0/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 - 06CV1120

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESDRAS JARVIO CONTRERAS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06CV1120-LAB

[Related Case No. 04cr2935-LAB]

ORDER DENYING MOTION

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND

DISMISSING CASE WITH

PREJUDICE 

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Petitioner Esdras Jarvio Contreras moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or

correct his sentence ("Motion") following his guilty plea and sentencing in Criminal Case

No. 04cr2935-LAB. By the express terms of his Plea Agreement, and on the record of his Disposition

and Sentencing hearings, Petitioner waived his right to seek collateral . Accordingly, the Motion is

DENIED.

Petitioner was represented by counsel throughout his criminal case and was assisted by an

interpreter at his court appearances. He appeared before Magistrate Judge James F. Stiven on

February 10, 2005 to enter a plea of guilty to one charge of being a deported alien found in the United

States. Reporter’s Transcript of 2/10/05 Disposition ("Dispo. R.T."). On the record at that hearing,

Petitioner acknowledged he had read the Plea Agreement, discussed it with his attorney, and

understood its terms, expressly including, among other provisions discussed on the record, the waiver

of his right to appeal or to collaterally attack his conviction or sentence as long as the sentence

ultimately imposed did not exceed the maximum permitted by law. Dispo. R.T. 6:5-13, 7:19-25. In

particular:

THE COURT: . . . You agree, in this plea agreement, that so long as

the custodial sentence that is imposed upon you is no greater than the

high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government,

pursuant to this agreement at the time of your sentencing, so long as it

Case 3:06-cv-01120-LAB Document 1 Filed 06/14/07 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 - 06CV1120

is within that range, you would agree to waive your right to appeal or

collaterally attack either the conviction or the sentence. Understood?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

. . . 

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Jarvio, I have explained to you your

rights before the Court and instructed you regarding the maximum

penalties that could be imposed. I ask you now, Mr. Jarvio, how do you

plead . . . to the charges in this indictment, guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

Dispo. RT 8:8-21, 9:17-22.

Prior to accepting the plea, the court ensured Petitioner understood the maximum penalties that

he faced for conviction of the crime charged:

THE COURT: Thus convicted, you would be subject to certain

maximum penalties that could be imposed against you for such a

conviction. [¶] Ms. Serano, can you recite the maximum penalties that

Mr. Jarvio is facing if convicted as charged here?

MS. SERANO: Yes, your Honor. It is a maximum of 20 years in

prison, a $250,000 fine, a special assessment of $100, and a term of

supervised release of not more than three years.

THE COURT: All right. You have heard, Mr. Jarvio, the

Government's attorney recite the maximum penalties that you are

facing. Do you understand that you are facing these maximum possible

penalties?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

Dispo. R.T. 4:14-5:2.

The following pertinent exchanges occurred on the record at Petitioner's May 16, 2005

sentencing hearing before the undersigned district judge,:

THE COURT: . . . I have in front of me a report and recommendation

issued by Judge Stiven, who took this gentleman's plea to a single count

of coming back into the United States after being deported. He

recommends that I accept the plea. I have not received any objection

from either side. . . . [¶] The court then does accept the plea of Mr.

Jarvio. The court finds that the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily

and intelligently.

Sentencing RT 2:10-22. 

The court acknowledged the Probation Department recommended a sentence different from

the one recommended by the parties:

Case 3:06-cv-01120-LAB Document 1 Filed 06/14/07 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

 It appears the Probation Department actually recommended 87 months, or 10-months more than the

low end 77-month Guideline. See Sentencing R.T. 11:22-23.

- 3 - 06CV1120

THE COURT: . . . The Guideline range is 77 to 96 months. The

Guidelines are, of course, advisory. The Probation Department

recommended 77 months.[1] I note that this gentleman has been

convicted of this very offense before and has received a 77-months

sentence, according to the Presentence Report, and he is back which

would indicate that some incremental increase would be appropriate.

Sentencing R.T. 3:10-16.

After hearing from counsel for both sides, including conscientious argument from Petitioner's

counsel in support of a 77-month low-end sentence (10-months less than recommended by the

Probation Department) in consideration of various personal considerations, characterizations to

minimize Petitioner's prior criminal record, and other mitigating argument (Sentencing R.T. pp.3-8,

11), the court indicated it was "persuaded by [defense counsel]" not to impose an incremental 10-

months on top of the 77-month low end Guideline, but explained it was significant to the court that

Petitioner had previously been sentenced to 77 months following conviction for "this very same

offense," warranting some increase over his sentence for the prior offense: 

THE COURT: . . . It is significant to me that he has been previously

convicted of this very same offense. The only thing that's different is

he served his time. He has been deported, then he came back and he

got 77 months. . . .[¶] The Probation Department recommends 87

months. [¶] I was inclined to impose that term. I have been

persuaded by [defense counsel] Mr. Carriedo that maybe the full 10

months incremental increase is not necessary. [¶] The court imposes

an 84-months sentence followed by three years of supervised

release. . .

Sentencing R.T. 11:13-12:3.

Defense counsel urged the court to also recommend Petitioner receive a mental health

evaluation and treatment while in custody, in addition to drug treatment, a recommendation the court

adopted. Sentencing R.T. 12:19-23. The court then confirmed on the record:

THE COURT: . . . Do you agree that the court imposed a sentence

[that] was bargained for under the plea agreement, not the high end of

the guidelines, and results in the waiver of this gentleman's right to

appeal and collaterally attack his sentence?

. . . .

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01120-LAB Document 1 Filed 06/14/07 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 - 06CV1120

MR. CARRIEDO: I do.

THE COURT: I make that finding as well.

Sentencing R.T. 12:14-13:2.

Despite the foregoing record, Petitioner now moves to have the court revisit his plea and

sentence on the purported grounds: "I placed my full trust and confidence in my lawyer to preserve

and protect each of my constitutional rights of which he failed to do . . . " Pet.. p. 6. He contends, in

pertinent pat his trial counsel "was constitutionally ineffective where he failed to investigate, and/or

to seek a downward departure under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. . . ." or a competency

hearing based on Petitioner's drug abuse and suffering from mental disorders. Pet. p. 3. Although the

court declines to reach the merits of the Motion, the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings on

their face belie Petitioner's representations. Not only is the record contrary to Petitioner's arguments,

but also the Court finds any attempt to appeal or to collaterally attack his conviction or sentence is

inconsistent with and foreclosed by his valid waivers of those rights, as expressly incorporated into

his plea agreement, the record of his change of plea hearing, and the sentencing record. 

The written plea agreement Petitioner executed affirming his understanding of each waiver and

the record of his disposition hearing leave no doubt his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary as to

all elements of the offense, and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal or to

collaterally attack his conviction or sentence, as confirmed again on the record at his sentencing

hearing. Petitioner received a sentence three months shorter than was recommended by the Probation

Department and within the scope of his Plea Agreement. Were the Court to revisit the conviction or

sentence, the government would lose the benefit of its bargain to resolve this criminal case without

additional expense of resources. 

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Motion is DENIED and the

case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01120-LAB Document 1 Filed 06/14/07 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 - 06CV1120

Case 3:06-cv-01120-LAB Document 1 Filed 06/14/07 Page 5 of 5