Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00074/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00074-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cr1061-LAB-1 and

14cv74-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE SENTENCE PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

JOSE LUIS PADILLA-VAZQUEZ,

Defendant.

Defendant Jose Luis Padilla-Vazquez pleaded guilty to attempted reentry following

deportation, and fraud and misuse of an entry document. After an unsuccessful appeal, he

filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, alleging that his trial

counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him to accept a plea offer that included “fast track”

and for failing to explain to him the advantages of such an offer.

This issue, however, came up earlier in the case and the factual record shows that

Padilla-Vazquez was both told of the “fast track” offer and advised to accept it. On May 21,

2013, the Court held a status hearing to consider Padilla-Vazquez’s request for new counsel,

and the transcript of that hearing was filed in the docket in connection with the appeal

(Docket no. 46 (Tr.).)

At that hearing, Padilla-Vazquez said his trial counsel had said he did not have time

to obtain a good plea offer for Padilla-Vazquez. (Tr. 4:19–5:5.) In response, counsel told the

Court that he had presented all the offers the government had made, discussed them with

- 1 - 12cr1061 and 14cv74

Case 3:14-cv-00074-LAB Document 2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 1 of 3
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

Padilla-Vazquez, and given Padilla-Vazquez the benefit of his experience and advice. (Id.,

5:6–6:17.) The Court then explained to Padilla-Vazquez, in detail, what counsel’s

responsibility was, and what counsel represented that he had done to fulfill that

responsibility, and asked for Padilla-Vazquez’s response. (Id., 6:23–9:18.) In particular, the

Court asked Padilla-Vazquez to identify why he thought his counsel wasn’t doing a good job

(id., 9:15–16, 10:21–22), and insisted on hearing Padilla-Vazquez’s response. (Id., 9:18.)

Padilla-Vazquez merely said he lacked confidence in his counsel, and thought his counsel

should have been able to get him a better plea offer. (Id., 9:19–20, 10:23–11:1.)

At that hearing, the Court had an opportunity to question and observe PadillaVazquez, and to understand what his complaints against his counsel were. He did not

contradict his counsel’s representation that the “fast track” plea offer had been

communicated and explained to him, and that he had gone against his counsel’s

recommendation by rejecting the offer. Rather, it was evident his complaint was that he

wanted a better offer than the ones that were made to him. The record, which incorporates

a number of the Court’s findings as well as Padilla-Vazquez’s and his counsel’s

representations, shows that the factual assertions Padilla-Vazquez is now making are

unfounded. 

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Padilla-Vazquez would have to show

his counsel’s representation was objectively unreasonable, and that there is a reasonable

probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the proceeding’s result would have

been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Because he cannot

show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard, the

motion must be denied.

Moreover, Padilla-Vazquez does not show there was any reasonable likelihood he

was prejudiced by his failure to accept the “fast track” offer. Although the guideline range

was 63 to 78 months, because of § 3553 factors, the Court imposed a lower sentence, below

the guideline range. Fact track, if offered and accepted, would at best have reduced the

guideline range to 41 to 51 months, and his actual sentence falls within that. 

- 2 - 12cr1061 and 14cv74

Case 3:14-cv-00074-LAB Document 2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 2 of 3
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 motion is DENIED, and a certificate of appealability is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 15, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cr1061 and 14cv74

Case 3:14-cv-00074-LAB Document 2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 3 of 3