Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01615/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01615-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Manuel Leon-Sanchez
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs.

Victor Manuel Leon-Sanchez,

Defendant-Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1615-PHX-SRB (ECV)

 CR07-0932-PHX-SRB

 

ORDER

On January 13, 2011, Defendant filed his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or

Correct Sentence by person in federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his motion

Defendant raised two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his lawyer

coerced him into entering into a plea agreement which he did not understand and that his

lawyer failed to present any mitigating evidence at sentencing. The United States responded

to the amended motion and argued that Defendant's express waiver of his right to file for

collateral review contained in his plea agreement precluded the claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel at sentencing and that the waiver should be enforced. The United

States also argued that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to

Defendant's alleged lack of understanding of the plea agreement was also waived in the plea

agreement and that the waiver should be enforced. Alternatively, the United States' argued

Case 2:10-cv-01615-SRB Document 31 Filed 08/12/11 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

- 2 -

that neither claim had merit and that the motion should be denied. No reply was filed in

support of the 2255 motion. 

On June 30, 2011 the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation. With

respect to the claim of ineffective of counsel at sentencing the Magistrate Judge pointed out

that the United States had argued in its response that Defendant's claims were foreclosed by

his waiver of collateral review in his plea agreement and that there had been no challenge

made to the validity of that waiver. The Magistrate Judge also noted that not only was the

waiver of appeal rights not addressed in the 2255 motion but Defendant did not file a reply

to address the United States' assertion of the waiver. The Magistrate Judge concluded that

the waiver should be enforced with respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

at sentencing and the 2255 motion denied. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by allegedly not informing Defendant of the

consequences of his plea agreement should be denied on the merits because Defendant failed

to satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland standard. 

In the Report and Recommendation the parties were specifically advised of their rights

to file specific written objections with the Court within 14 days of the date of service of the

Report and Recommendation. They were cautioned that failure to timely object may result

in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further

review and that failure to timely object to any factual determinations would be considered

a waiver of the right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order of judgment

entered pursuant to the Report and Recommendation. 

Defendant's counsel filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation on July 20, 2011. The objections addressed only the claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel at sentencing. Defendant did not object to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel allegedly

did not adequately inform Defendant of the consequences of his plea agreement be denied

on the merits. However, also not addressed in the objections was the basis for the Magistrate

Judge's recommendation for denial of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at

Case 2:10-cv-01615-SRB Document 31 Filed 08/12/11 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

- 3 -

sentencing. Defendant only argued the merits of his claim and failed again to address the

issue of his valid waiver of appeal rights and rights to collateral review in his plea agreement.

The United States' responded in opposition to the objections.

With respect to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that

Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on an alleged lack of being

adequately informed of the consequences of his plea agreement, the Court will adopt the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge without objection.

With respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing,

Defendant's objections fail in any way to address the issue of waiver found by the Magistrate

Judge. This Court's de novo review of the record shows clear evidence that Defendant

understood the waiver and entered his plea knowing that he would not be permitted to appeal

or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence so long as his sentence was consistent with

his plea agreement. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the waiver should be

enforced with respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.

Therefore;

IT IS ORDERED overruling the objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendations.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence by Person in Federal Custody.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the denial of the Motion to Vacate is justified

by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-01615-SRB Document 31 Filed 08/12/11 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

- 4 -

 and because Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.

DATED this 12th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01615-SRB Document 31 Filed 08/12/11 Page 4 of 4