Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02148/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02148-0/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,

Respondent/Plaintiff,

CRIM CASE NO. 11cr1003WQH

CIVIL CASE NO. 12cv2148WQH

ORDER

 v.

RAMON AVALOS,

Petitioner/Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the court is the Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside,

or correct sentence by a person in federal custody filed by the Defendant Ramon Avalos. (ECF

No. 32). 

On February 10, 2011, a complaint was filed in this federal court asserting the following

two charges against the Defendant: Count One Receipt of images of minors engaged in

sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2256(2) and 2252(a)(2) and Count Two

possession of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2256(2) and 2252(a)(4)(B). (ECF No. 1).

On February 25, 2011, Defendant was arrested pursuant to the criminal complaint. (ECF

No. 3).

On February 25, 2011, Defendant made an initial appearance on the complaint

represented by his retained counsel. (ECF No. 4).

On March 22, 2011, an information was filed charging the Defendant with possession

of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a).

(ECF No. 9).

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-02148-WQH Document 2 Filed 12/26/12 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

On April 5, 2011, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the one-count information

pursuant to a plea agreement. The plea agreement stated in part: “Defendant has consulted

with counsel and is satisfied with counsel’s representation.” (ECF No. 18 at 16).

At the time of plea, the Magistrate Judge stated to the Defendant:

The Court: Any – you taken any medication or substance that would affect your

ability to understand what’s happening today?

Defendant: No.

The Court: You have a clear mind?

Defendant: Yes, sir.

The Court: You have any questions, you ask your attorney, and we’ll stop the

action. Okay?

Defendant: Yes, sir.

(ECF No. 35 at 3). The Magistrate Judge addressed counsel for the Defendant: 

The Court: And Mr. O’Connell, you went over the nature of the offense with

your client thoroughly?

Defense Counsel: I did, your Honor.

The Court: And in your opinion, he understands the nature of the offense to

which he is pleading guilty?

Defense Counsel: He does. 

Id. at 5. Defendant told the Magistrate Judge that he went over the plea agreement with his

attorney and that he understood the plea agreement and agreed to it. The Magistrate Judge

asked the Defendant “Have you gone over this plea agreement thoroughly with your attorney?:

Defendant responded: “I have, sir.” The Magistrate Judge: “And has he answered all your

questions?” Defendant responded “Yes sir.” Id. at 8.

The Magistrate Judge reviewed the factual basis for the plea with the Defendant and

found that the Defendant was “pleading guilty with an open mind, with a clear head and that

you are knowingly and voluntarily waiving your constitutional rights.” Id. at 9. 

On April 5, 2011, the Magistrate Judge made written findings that the plea of guilty was

made knowingly and voluntarily and that the Defendant was competent to enter a plea. (ECF

No. 19).

On April 22, 2011, this District Court Judge accepted the plea of guilty. (ECF No. 21). 

On July 15, 2011, a presentence report was filed which set forth the Defendant’s

physical condition and mental and emotional health. No objections were filed to the

presentence report. 

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-02148-WQH Document 2 Filed 12/26/12 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

At sentencing, pursuant to the plea agreement, the Government and the Defendant

jointly recommended a low end sentence of 78 months. (ECF No. 26). The Court imposed

a sentence of 60 months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. (ECF No. 30 at 2). 

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

Defendant moves the Court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence on the grounds

that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant asserts that his counsel failed

to conduct reasonable investigation into his mental state, failed to present an insanity defense,

and failed to obtain a psychiatrist’s opinion to evaluate his competence. Defendant further

asserts that his counsel “failed to object to several egregious instances of prosecution

misconduct and was woefully under prepared for the pre-sentencing phase.” (ECF No. 32 at

5).

Plaintiff United States contends that the Defendant has not stated a valid claim for

ineffective assistance of counsel. Plaintiff United States asserts that Defendant stated at the

plea colloquy and in the written plea agreement that he was satisfied with the representation

of his retained counsel. Plaintiff United States contends that the Defendant had the opportunity

to raise any concerns about his mental state during the probation interview and that there are

no facts alleged which would support a claim that his counsel was not competent or that he

suffered any prejudice. Plaintiff United States asserts that the Defendant admitted to

downloading and viewing child pornography and that sentence imposed was lawful.

ANALYSIS 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides:

A prisoner 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.

Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that

the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be

served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon,

determine the issues and make findings of facts and conclusions of law with

respect thereto. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without

jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise

- 3 -

Case 3:12-cv-02148-WQH Document 2 Filed 12/26/12 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

open to collateral attack, or that there has been a denial or infringement of the

constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to

collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set aside the judgment and shall

discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the

sentence as may appear appropriate. 

 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) and (b). 

RULING OF THE COURT 

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner must show

that representation of counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that any

deficiencies in counsel’s performance were prejudicial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 688, 690 (1984). Both deficient performance and prejudice are required before it can be

said that a conviction or sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that

rendered the result of the proceeding unreliable and thus in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

See United States v. Thomas, 417 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Objective Standard of Reasonableness

In order to show that counsel’s representations fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness, Defendant must identify “material, specific errors and omissions that fall

outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” United States v. Molina, 934

F.2d 1440, 1447 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). The inquiry is “whether counsel’s advice

was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Turner, 281

F.3d at 879 (internal quotations omitted). In making this determination, the court applies a

“strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable

professional assistance....” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. A deficient performance requires

showing that “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as ‘counsel’

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. at 687. “The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right

to assistance of counsel because it envisions counsel’s playing a role that is critical to the

ability of the adversarial system to produce just results.” Id. at 685. 

Defendant stated in the written plea agreement that he has “consulted with counsel and

is satisfied with counsel’s representation.” (ECF No. 18 at 16). Defendant informed the

Magistrate Judge that he had no questions for his counsel, that he understood the plea

- 4 -

Case 3:12-cv-02148-WQH Document 2 Filed 12/26/12 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

agreement, and that he committed the acts that formed the factual basis for the plea. The

Magistrate Judge confirmed with the Defendant that the had personally read the factual basis

for the plea and the Defendant “agreed that everything in there is what he did that makes him

guilty of this offense.” (ECF No. 35 at 10). The Magistrate Judge found the plea was

knowing and voluntary. Defendant was interviewed by probation and discussed his mental

and emotional health with no claim of mental illness or insanity. There are no facts alleged by

the Defendant that would support a claim that the performance of his counsel was deficient

because his counsel failed to pursue an insanity defense or failed to raise issues of the

Defendant’s competence to proceed.

Prejudice

To prevail on the prejudice prong of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the

defendant must show that there is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the results of the proceedings would have been different. A reasonable

probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland,

466 U.S. at 69. In this case, the Defendant retained counsel, signed a favorable plea

agreement, entered a knowing and intelligent plea of guilty, and received a sentence below the

joint recommendation of the parties. There are no facts presented in the petition which would

support any claim of mental illness, insanity; or prejudice from counsel failing to raise issues

of mental illness or insanity. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside,

or correct sentence by a person in federal custody filed by the Defendant Ramon Avalos. (ECF

No. 32) is denied.

DATED: December 26, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 -

Case 3:12-cv-02148-WQH Document 2 Filed 12/26/12 Page 5 of 5