Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cr-00385/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cr-00385-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joaquin Rubio-Vasquez
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Joaquin Rubio-Vasquez, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 01-0385-PHX-ROS 

CIV 05-2198-PHX-ROS (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

On July 25, 2005, Joaquin Rubio-Vasquez filed a timely Motion to Vacate, Set Aside

or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the sentence imposed for a

violation of his supervised release. He contends he was denied the effective assistance of

trial counsel. The Government contends that Rubio-Vasquez failed to establish that but for

counsel's alleged erroneous advice, he would have insisted on requiring proof that he violated

a term of his supervised release. The Court agrees and recommends that his motion be

denied.

Following his arrest and indictment for illegal re-entry after deportation in 2001,

Rubio-Vasquez pleaded guilty pursuant to a written agreement, and was sentenced to 51

months' imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. See Doc. #11, 17, 22.

Following his release from custody, he was arrested on December 7, 2004 and removed from

the United States to Mexico. On March 22, 2005 he was again arrested pursuant to a

criminal complaint, on one misdemeanor count and two felony counts of illegal entry, in

Case 2:01-cr-00385-ROS Document 37 Filed 07/05/06 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 - 2 -

violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325 and 1326. On March 23, 2005, he pleaded guilty to one

misdemeanor count, in exchange for dismissal of the two felony counts, and was sentenced

to six months' imprisonment. As a result of this conviction, the Government filed a petition

to revoke his supervised release. See Doc. #24. On May 23, 2005, Rubio-Vasquez admitted

the violation of Standard Condition #1 of his supervised release: that he not commit another

federal, state, or local crime during the term of supervision. See Doc. #29. The two-year

term of imprisonment imposed by the District Court following his admission of the violation

was ordered to be served consecutive to the sentence imposed following his conviction for

illegal reentry in March, 2005.

Rubio-Vasquez contends that trial counsel advised him that he faced a maximum

sentence of six months for his violation of supervised release. Assuming arguendo he was

so advised, Rubio-Vasquez does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that

but for trial counsel's actions, Rubio-Vasquez would not have admitted the violation, but

would have insisted on going to trial, and holding the Government to its burden of proof.

Absent such a showing, he cannot satisfy the requirement that counsel's actions affected the

outcome of the plea process, and thereby prejudiced him. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52,

58-60 (1985) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); United States v.

Baramydka, 95 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 1996)).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Joaquin Rubio-Vasquez' Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be DENIED (Doc. #33).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Case 2:01-cr-00385-ROS Document 37 Filed 07/05/06 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 - 3 -

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 5th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:01-cr-00385-ROS Document 37 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 3