Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-19-01507/USCOURTS-ca6-19-01507-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joel Coronado-Turua
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0110n.06

Case No. 19-1507

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOEL CORONADO-TURUA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: SUTTON, McKEAGUE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Joel Coronado-Turua pled guilty to 

conspiracy to distribute seven kilograms of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846. In the 

plea agreement, Coronado-Turua and the government agreed to a guideline range of 70 to 87 

months, but they also agreed that, if the district court found that Coronado-Turua had a higher 

guideline range based on his criminal history, then the higher guideline range would become the 

agreed range. Although Coronado-Turua was facing a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, 

Id. § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), the parties believed that he would qualify for a sentence “without regard 

to any statutory minimum sentence” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), often referred to as the safety 

valve, see, e.g., United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582, 586 (6th Cir. 2008). Unfortunately for 

Coronado-Turua, the district court found that he had a prior conviction that the parties were not 

 Case: 19-1507 Document: 21-2 Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 1
Case Nos. 19-1507, United States v. Coronado-Turua

- 2 -

aware of prior to making the plea agreement. The district court found that, with that conviction, 

the safety valve would not apply to Coronado-Turua, and his attorney agreed. The district court 

sentenced Coronado-Turua to the mandatory minimum of 120 months without objection from the 

government.

In this direct appeal, Coronado-Turua alleges ineffective assistance of counsel,1arguing 

that his counsel (1) should have discovered the prior conviction before negotiating the plea and 

(2) should have argued that the safety valve still applied to Coronado-Turua based on the plain 

language of the statute. 

To show ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) deficient 

performance by the attorney and (2) prejudice resulting from that deficient performance. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The Supreme Court has noted that, “[w]hen 

an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct appeal, appellate counsel and the court must 

proceed on a trial record not developed precisely for the object of litigating or preserving the claim 

and thus often incomplete or inadequate for this purpose.” Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 

500, 504-05 (2003). Following that reasoning, our Court “ordinarily [] will not review a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because the record is usually insufficient to 

permit an adequate review of such a claim.” United States v. Gardner, 417 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 

2005). 

We do, however, allow for an exception to this rule “for cases in which the record is 

adequately developed to allow the court to properly assess the merits of the issue.” United States 

v. Fortson, 194 F.3d 730, 736 (6th Cir. 1999). Typically, these cases involve pure questions of 

law, see, e.g., United States v. Burgess, 142 F. App’x 232, 240 (6th Cir. 2005) (determining an 

1 Although the plea agreement contains an appellate waiver, it does not bar an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

 Case: 19-1507 Document: 21-2 Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 2
Case Nos. 19-1507, United States v. Coronado-Turua

- 3 -

ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal “as a matter of law”); a fully developed record, see, 

e.g., United States v. Wynn, 663 F.3d 847, 850-51 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting that the district court had 

previously held a hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel); or a simple decision where proof 

of deficient performance of prejudice was absent from the record, see, e.g., United States v. Geedi, 

490 F. App’x 755, 760-61 (6th Cir. 2012) (finding no merit to defendant’s claims of prejudice on 

direct appeal). 

Coronado-Turua’s case does not meet this exception. At this point, we are missing 

information about the communications between Coronado-Turua and his counsel regarding the 

plea agreement and his criminal history. See United States v. Bradley, 400 F.3d 459, 462 (6th Cir. 

2005) (refusing to hear an ineffective assistance of counsel claim without more information about 

the communications between defendant and his counsel regarding a plea agreement). There is also 

the question of prejudice and whether Coronado-Turua would have refused the plea agreement 

even if he knew he was going to get a 120-month sentence. Finally, on appeal, Coronado-Turua 

makes a novel argument regarding the safety valve’s applicability to him; further briefing on that 

issue will only serve to help this Court make a decision in the post-conviction proceedings. As 

such, we find it appropriate to follow the general rule and decline to address the merits of 

Coronado-Turua’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Coronado-Turua’s conviction and sentence.

 Case: 19-1507 Document: 21-2 Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 3