Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01109/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Eloy Vazquez-Garcia
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-1109

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Eloy Vazquez-Garcia,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: January 3, 2007

 Filed: January 9, 2007

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, & RILEY, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Eloy Vazquez-Garcia (Vazquez) filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking relief

from his 324-month sentence for drug crimes, claiming ineffective assistance of trial

counsel. The district court1

 denied Vazquez's motion but granted a certificate of

appealability on the issue of whether or not Vazquez's trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance. After careful review, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1109 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2007 Entry ID: 3265892
-2-

Vazquez was convicted by a jury of two separate drug offenses: (1) conspiracy

to distribute more than 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine, and (2)

attempt to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1), 846. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 324 months on each

count. Vazquez's conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. United States v.

Vazquez-Garcia, 340 F.3d 632 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1168 (2004).

After the Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari, Vazquez filed the instant

§ 2255 motion in the district court, claiming that his trial counsel was constitutionally

ineffective for failing to call a witness, failing to adequately prepare for trial, and

failing to challenge the government's case. The district court denied Vazquez's motion

without an evidentiary hearing, but granted a certificate of appealability on the

question of whether Vazquez's trial counsel was ineffective. On appeal, Vazquez

focuses his argument only on the issue of whether his trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to investigate a defense and a witness who would have testified that Vazquez

was not involved in the conspiracy that led to his conviction. The other claims of

ineffective assistance initially raised by Vazquez are deemed abandoned. See

Etheridge v. United States, 241 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir. 2001) ("Claims not argued in

the briefs are deemed abandoned on appeal."). 

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve both issues of law and fact,

and as such are reviewed de novo. Williams v. United States, 452 F.3d 1009, 1012

(8th Cir. 2006). "A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so

defective as to require reversal of a conviction . . . has two components. First, the

defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. . . . Second, the

defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense."

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see also Williams, 452 F.3d at

1012 (referring to the Strickland requirements as necessary to prove ineffective

assistance of counsel). Both requirements of the test must be satisfied in order for a

claim to succeed. Williams, 452 F.3d at 1012. 

Appellate Case: 06-1109 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2007 Entry ID: 3265892
-3-

Vazquez contends that "his trial counsel's representation fell below an objective

standard of reasonableness," United States v. Staples, 410 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir.

2005) (internal citations omitted), because counsel failed to interview an alleged

witness and then use that witness in Vazquez's defense. Specifically, Vazquez alleges

that one of his alleged coconspirators, Antonio Morales-Garcia (Morales), would have

testified that Vazquez was innocent and not involved in the drug conspiracy. Morales

pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the conspiracy prior to Vazquez's trial as part

of a plea agreement. Vazquez claims that his counsel's failure to interview and call

Morales in his defense constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. We respectfully

disagree.

"The decision not to call a witness is a virtually unchallengeable decision of

trial strategy." Id. (internal marks omitted); see also Bowman v. Gammon, 85 F.3d

1339, 1345 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that under Strickland, "decisions related to trial

strategy are virtually unchallengeable"), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1128 (1997).

However, the issue before us is not simply one of strategy and determining whether

or not to call a witness, but if trial counsel was unreasonable in not exploring an

alleged defense. As such, we focus not on counsel's decision not to call Morales, but

the allegation that counsel failed to interview Morales after Vazquez informed his

counsel that Morales had exculpatory information and was willing to testify on

Vazquez's behalf.

"We have stated that failing to interview witnesses or discover mitigating

evidence may be a basis for finding counsel ineffective within the meaning of the

Sixth Amendment right to counsel." Kramer v. Kemna, 21 F.3d 305, 309 (8th Cir.

1994). This does not automatically lead to a conclusion that counsel was ineffective

however, because even if we assume that counsel's failure to interview Morales did

not meet an objective standard of conduct, Vazquez still needs to "make a substantial

showing that, but for counsel's failure to interview . . . the witness[] in question, there

is a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different." Id.

Appellate Case: 06-1109 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2007 Entry ID: 3265892
-4-

Vazquez has not made the substantial showing required of him in this case. He has

not provided any independent evidence to the court as to what Morales would have

allegedly said had be been interviewed or called to testify. See Sanders v. Trickey,

875 F.2d 205, 210 (8th Cir.) (holding that appellant who filed a § 2255 motion but

produced no affidavit from the witness in question or any other independent support

for his claim failed to show prejudice because he offered only speculation that he was

prejudiced by his counsel's failure to interview the witness, which was not enough to

undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial, as required by Strickland), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 898 (1989). Vazquez has provided no affidavits or any other

information supporting his claims to the court. The only information about what

Morales's potential testimony would have been is speculation on the part of Vazquez.

Recognizing the deferential standard when reviewing the conduct of counsel, we

decline to find prejudice in this situation when there is no evidence other than

speculation to support the finding. See id. (recognizing the general rule of avoiding

excessive posttrial inquiry into actions of counsel at trial in order to avoid any chilling

effect on attorneys' willingness to serve, and stating that "[n]othing would encourage

a proliferation of ineffectiveness of counsel claims more than to permit an accused to

establish the prejudice prong of Strickland on a showing of nothing more than

speculation that he had been prejudiced by his counsel's performance."). Because

Vazquez cannot satisfy both requirements under the Strickland analysis, he cannot

succeed on his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1109 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/09/2007 Entry ID: 3265892