Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00614/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00614-0/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 In fact, Mr. Diaz was not Murrieta-Perez’s attorney on the escape charge, rather Mr.

Diaz represented him on the trafficking charge only. Murrieta-Perez was represented by S.

Magnus Eriksson on the escape charge, and he has made no claim of ineffective assistance

concerning Eriksson’s representation.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff/Respondent, ) CIV 10-0614-PHX-PGR (DKD)

) CR 08-1217-PHX-PGR

v. )

)

Jesus A. Murrieta-Perez, ) ORDER

)

Defendant/Movant. )

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) of Magistrate

Judge Duncan, based on Jesus A. Murrieta-Perez’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence. In his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Murrieta-Perez challenges his

conviction for Escape from a Federal Facility and this Court’s imposition of a 10-month term

of imprisonment. Murrieta-Perez argues that prior to sentencing, Mr. Diaz1

 incorrectly told

him that he would receive 54 months on the trafficking conviction (the case before Judge

Teilborg) to be served concurrent with a 10-month term on the escape conviction (the case

before this Court)(Doc. 22). Murrieta-Perez argues that he received ineffective assistance of

counsel because he was not properly advised of the sentence he would receive. He further

contends that because of the misinformation regarding the sentence, he maintains that he

was too late to timely file an appeal. 

Case 2:10-cv-00614-PGR Document 11 Filed 11/02/10 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Duncan’s findings that Murrieta-Perez cannot

claim to have been misled while having acknowledged that he reviewed the Presentence

Report, having made no objection to it, having heard the arguments for and against

consecutive sentencing, and having informed this Court at sentencing that he understood the

Court’s judgment and he did not dispute the consecutive nature of the sentence at the time

it was imposed. Additionally, Murrieta-Perez was informed prior to sentencing that this

Court had the discretion to impose either a concurrent or consecutive sentence. Finally, his

mistaken reference to Mr. Diaz as his attorney in the escape case, his lack of any allegation

of ineffective assistance against Mr. Eriksson, and the lack of any evidence of ineffective

assistance in the record, renders his claim without merit.

Therefore, having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation and no party

having filed any objection thereto,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 7) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence. (Doc. 1)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a Certificate of Appealability and leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Murrieta-Perez has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00614-PGR Document 11 Filed 11/02/10 Page 2 of 2