Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00016/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00016-0/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

DANIEL MATTA,

Petitioner/Defendant,

CASE NOS. 11-CR-1100 LAB

 13-CV-0016 LAB

ORDER DENYING HABEAS

PETITION

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent/Plaintiff.

On September 12, 2014, the Court denied all of Petitioner Daniel Matta’s habeas

claims except for one: that his counsel was ineffective for not filing a notice of appeal when

he asked her to. (Pet. at 9.) The Court ordered an evidentiary hearing on Matta’s claim

pursuant to United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 409 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2005), and held

the hearing on November 24, 2014. Matta appeared pro se and William Cole appeared on

behalf of the United States.

At the evidentiary hearing, Matta acknowledged that he waived attorney-client

privilege in pursuing this claim. (See also Docket no. 46.) The Court heard testimony from

his criminal defense counsel, Michelle Betancourt. Ms. Betancourt testified that, based on

her custom and habit, she would have filed a notice of appeal if Matta asked her to do so. 

She provided the parties with a complete record of her representation of Matta, which did

not contain any indication that either he or anyone on his behalf asked her to appeal his

- 1 - 11cr1100, 13cv16

Case 3:13-cv-00016-LAB Document 2 Filed 11/26/14 Page 1 of 4
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

criminal conviction. Her records contained detailed descriptions of her conversations with

Matta and those acting his behalf, including Matta’s wife. Ms. Betancourt further testified

that it is her established custom and habit to include in these detailed records any request

for an appeal by a criminal defendant or anyone acting on his behalf. The absence of any

indication that an appeal was requested confirmed her recollection that Matta never asked

her to appeal his criminal sentence as his habeas petition alleges.

In contrast, the evidence supporting Matta’s contention was thin. Matta never offered

his own sworn testimony or subjected himself to cross examination at the evidentiary

hearing, though the Court told him he had those rights. He made a proffer that his request

for an appeal occurred as an aside to Ms. Betancourt during the sentencing hearing itself,

and the Court assumes that his testimony would have been to the same effect. But the

circumstances of the Court’s February 13, 2012 sentencing hearing do not support his

statement. The Court sentenced Matta to 120 months in prison for importing heroin into the

United States pursuant to his plea agreement. After Matta spoke and asked for a more

lenient sentence, the Court made it clear that its hands were tied: “You know I can’t do that,

right? You know the way the sentencing law applies here.” (Sentencing Tr. at 6:5–6.) The

Court even explained that it thought Matta’s sentence was too severe.

I cannot impose, absent a motion from the United States, a

sentence of less than 120 months in this case. If there is a way

to impose a lesser sentence, then I am on board with it. I think

that’s too much time, even given the circumstances here. 

Doesn’t make great sense to me that a prior drunk driving

catapults him into this category. I would not have sentenced 97

to 121 months. I think that’s too long under all the

circumstances of this case. 

(Sentencing Tr. at 9:9–16.) At sentencing, the Court specifically drew Matta’s attention to

the fact that he waived his right to appeal his sentence, with no objection or sign of confusion

from Matta. (Sentencing Tr. at 12:5–19.) Throughout sentencing, Matta gave no indication

that the sentence he was receiving was anything other than what he bargained for in the plea

agreement and what was promised to him by his counsel. 

///

- 2 - 11cr1100, 13cv16

Case 3:13-cv-00016-LAB Document 2 Filed 11/26/14 Page 2 of 4
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 Court also notes that Matta made other representations that lacked credibility. 

For instance, his cross-examination of Ms. Betancourt challenged her to remember that she

promised him that, if he accepted the plea agreement, he would be placed in an advisory

guidelines range with a low end of 46 months. His habeas petition makes the same claim.

(Docket no. 28, Pet., at 14.) But the plea agreement, bearing Matta’s signature and initials,

makes it clear there was no such offer. (See generally Docket no. 32, Plea Agreement.) At

Matta’s change-of-plea hearing, Magistrate Judge Porter asked Matta if he had any

questions about the plea agreement, and he answered no. (Plea Tr. at 9:12–14.) When

Judge Porter asked Matta if he initiated and signed the plea agreement, read it, and

discussed it with his attorney, he answered yes. (Plea Tr. at 9:2–11.) Finally, she asked him

if he’d “been promised anything by anyone that’s been a factor in your decision to plead

guilty,” and he answered no. (Plea Tr. at 11:1–4.) Matta’s habeas petition, for the first time,

says that it all happened differently: that he was made promises in derogation of the plea

agreement, and that he asked for an appeal rather than knowingly waived it. The evidentiary

hearing and the record as a whole establish by a clear preponderance of the evidence those

assertions are false.

The Court accepts and credits Ms. Betancourt’s version of the facts. It is consistent

with the circumstances at the Court’s February 13, 2012 sentencing hearing, and with the

overall record. The Court understands that Mr. Matta is dissatisfied with his sentence. It is

not a sentence that the Court would have imposed if not for the mandatory minimum. But

the Court must reject Matta’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for not filing a notice of

appeal when he asked her to, because the Court finds that he did not ask her to appeal. 

The claim is DENIED. The petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

///

///

///

///

///

- 3 - 11cr1100, 13cv16

Case 3:13-cv-00016-LAB Document 2 Filed 11/26/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Additionally, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Matta has

failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 25, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cr1100, 13cv16

Case 3:13-cv-00016-LAB Document 2 Filed 11/26/14 Page 4 of 4