2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-28-2008 

# U SA v . Hid algo P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4885

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Hid al g o " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1698. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1698H onor abl e Thom as N . O ’ N ei l l , J r . , D i s t r i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he * E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 06- 4885

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. E VE L YN HI DAL GO, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 04- cr - 00823 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. K athar i ne S. H ay den Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary7, 2008 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges and O ’ N E I L L , D i s t r i ctJ udge *

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J anuary28, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT O ’N E IL L , D is tr i ct

C our tJudge .2

O n t hi s appea l fr om t he s ent ence s he r ece i ved af t erbei ng convi ct ed of drug t r aff i cki ng, E vel yn H i dal go cont ends t hats he di d notr ece i ve ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . Fi ndi ng no err orand al s o concl udi ng t hatH i dal go r ece i ved ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n s e l, w e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

s e n te n c e . B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yfort he part i es ’ benef i t , w e as s um e fa m i l i ar i t yw i t h t he cas e and di s cus s onl yt hos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o ourdeci s i on. H i dal go w ai ved pr os ecut i on b yin d ictm e n t an d p led g u iltyto a o n e -c o u n t in f o rm a tio n c h a rg in g h e r w ith c o n sp ira c yto i mp o r t5 0 0 g r a ms o rmo r e o f c o c a i n e i n t o t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s c o n t r a r yt o 2 1 U. S . C. §§952( a) and 960( b) ( 2) ( B ) i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 963. A s ent enci ng hear i ng w as held on h er conv i ct i on on M arch 2, 20 05 . T he D i stri ctC ou rtdeterm i ned t he b ase offen se l evel t o be 30, al l ow ed a thr ee poi ntr educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , and fi xed t he adj us t ed off

ens e l evel at27. B as ed on H i dal go’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or y( convi ct i ons for p eti t l arc en yin A p ri l 19 8 2 , F eb rua ry1 9 8 3 , M arc h 1 9 9 8 an d F eb rua ry2 0 0 2 , resp ec ti v ely ), t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned hercr i m i nal hi s t or yt o be ca t egoryI I . H i dal go’ s t r i al couns el di d notobj ectt o t he ca t egoryI I det erm i nat i on. P ri o r t o a c c e p tin g H id a lg o ’s p le a , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o n d u c te d a c o llo q u yw ith h e r. D ur i ng t he cour s e of the col l oquyH i dal go confi r m ed thatt r i al couns el expl ai ned al l of t he t erm s of herpl ea a gr eement . H i dal go s t at ed thats he under s t ood in tera lia : t he natur e of the cha r ges agai ns ther , t he off ens es t o w hi ch s he w as pl eadi ng gui l t y , t he pos s i bl e s ent enci ng r anges forbot h cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egor i es I and I I , and thats he w as3

w a i vi ng he rr i gh tt o a pp e a l bo t h h e rs e nt e nc e a nd po s t - c on vi c t i on r e l i e f. U nd e rt he U . S. S en tenc ing G u idelines , the re su lt ing ran g e f o r of fe n se lev el 27 , crim inal h ist o ryca tego ry I i s 7 0 to 8 7 m o n ths. T h e se n tenc ing ran g e f o r of fe n se lev el 27 , crim inal h ist o ryca tego ry I I i s 78 t o 96 m ont hs . T he D i s t r i ctC our tas ked H i dal go i f s he under s t ood t hatt he s he coul d be s ent ence d m or e har s hl yt han the bot t om of both of the s ent enci ng r anges and that if sh e w a s s o se n ten c e d sh e n e v e rth e les s w a iv e d h e r rig h ts to a p p e llate a n d p o stconvi ct i on r evi ew . H i dal go r es ponded i n t he af fi r m at i ve. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a 78 mont h t erm of i m pr i s onm ent . J udgm entof s ent ence w as ent er ed on M ar ch 14, 2005. H i dal go’ s t r i al couns el di d notfi l e a not i ce of appea l w i t hi n 10 day s aft erj udgm entof s ent ence w as ent er ed. O n A pr i l 27, 2005, H i dal go s enta l et t ert o t he D i s t r i ctC our ti nqui r i ng as t o w hethert r i al couns el fi l ed a not i ce of appea l . T he l et t erw as docket ed and tr eat ed as a not i ce of appea l . I tw as t hen forw ar ded t o t hi s C our tand w as di s m i s s ed as unt i m el yon J une 14, 2005. O n M ay19, 2006, H i dal go fi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n D i s t r i ct C our t . She cl ai m ed thathert r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o fi l e a t i m el ynot i ce of appe al . T he D i s t r i ctC our tappoi nt ed new couns el t o r epr es entH i dal go, hel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on herm ot i on, and, aft erdet erm i ni ng t hatt he fa ct s es t abl i s hed dur i ng t he hea r i ng di d notconcl us i vel ycontr adi ctheras s er t i on t hats he r eques t ed thata not i ce of appea l be fi l ed on herbehal f, perm i t t ed hert o fi l e t o not i ce of appea l t o chal l enge he r s ent ence . O n N ovember22, 2006, H i dal go fi l ed hernot i ce of appea l . T her efor e,4

H id a lg o ’s a p p e a l o f

th e ju d g m e n t o f

se n ten c e e n ter e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt is p re se n tly b e f o re th is C o u rt. H i dal go ar gues t hats he w as depr i ved of e ffe ct i ve as s i s t ance of couns el byhert r i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o ur ge the D i s t r i ctC our tfora dow nw ar d departur e fr om cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryI I t o cat egoryI . W e fi r s tnot e thatw hi l e gene r al l yt hi s C our tw i l l not r eac h t he mer i t s of an i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m on di r ectappea l , U ni t ed St at es v. H ayw ood, 155 F. 3d 674, 678 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our thel d an e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g o n th is is s u e th e re c o rd is s u f f ic ie n t to a llo w f

o r r e v ie w th e re o f. G o v e rn m e n t o f

V irg in Isla n d s v . Z e p p , 7 4 8 F .2 d 1 2 5 , 1 3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 ). A p p e llate r evi ew i s al s o pr opers i nce ther e i s no need f oran addi t i onal evi dent i aryhear i ng i n any c o lla te ra l p ro c e e d in g . Id . A ccor di ng t o St r i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 668, 104 S. C t . 2052 ( 1984) , t r i al c o u n se l m a yb e f

o u n d in e f

f e c tiv e o n lyw h e re h is d e c isio n s w e re so d e f icie n t as to p re ju d ice th e rig h t to a f

a ir trial. In S trick lan d , the C o u rt h e ld : F irst, th e d e f

e n d a n t m u st s h o w th a t co u n se l' s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

icie n t. T hi s r equi r es s how i ng t hatcouns el m ade e r r or s s o s er i ous t hatcouns el w as n o t f u n c tio n in g a s th e “ c o u n se l” g u a ra n tee d th e d e f e n d a n t b yth e S ix th A m endment . Second, t he def endantm us ts how t hatt he def i ci ent per form ance pr ej udi ced the def ens e. Id . a t 6 8 7 , 6 8 8 , 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 2 0 5 2 . H idalg o ca n n o t sat isfythe f ir st pro n g o f th e S tr icklan d test . T ri al co u n sel’s5

per form ance w as notdefi ci ent . H i dal go ar gues t hatt r i al couns el s houl d have a r gued for a dow nw ar d departur e fr om cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryI I t o cat egoryI . H ow ever , as H idalg o stat ed in h er b ri ef , the g en era l ru le i s tha t i n o rde r t o q u ali fyfo r crim inal h ist o ry ca tego ryI an o ff

en d er typ icall yh as n o t bee n co n v ict ed o f a crim e w ith in the 1 0 y ea rs im m e d ia te ly p re c e d in g th e e n tr yo f s e n te n c e . S e e , U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 , c o m m e n t ( n .3 ). D es pi t e the fa ctt hatH i dal go w as notfr ee of convi ct i ons w i t hi n t he 10 y ear s pr i ort o t he i m pos i t i on of hers ent ence , s he neve r t hel es s ar gues t hatherconvi ct i ons w er e form i nor off enses. S he ther efore con cl ud es that tri al cou nsel w as i neff ect i ve fo r fai l i ng t o reque st a d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re . H id a lg o ’s a rg u m e n t d o e s n o t w ith s ta n d s c ru tin yu n d e r S tr ic k la n d . T ri al cou nsel ’s perform ance w as not defi ci ent because H i dalgo’s fou r pr i or conv i ct i on s - t w o w i t hin the 1 0 y ears i m m ediat el ypri or t o h er s entenci ng - es t abli sh t hat s he is a cat egoryI I offe nder . T r i al couns el ’ s as s er t ed fa i l ur e t o ur ge the D i s t r i ctC our tt o cons i der a dow nw ar d departur e di d i n notfal l out s i de an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s as r equi r ed bySt r i ckl and. T her efor e, H i dal go di d notr ece i ve i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n s e l. Secondl y , t r i al couns el ’ s per form ance w as notdefi ci entbeca us e H i dal go’ s pl ea agr eementpr ecl uded tr i al couns el fr om ar gui ng fora dow nw ar d departur e. H erpl ea ag ree m en t spe cifica ll ystat es th at th ere is no b asis fo r an u p w ard o r do w n w ard d ep arture nots etfor t h t her ei n. I n herpl ea a gr eementH i dal go al s o w ai ved the r i ghtt o fi l e any a p p e a l o r c o llate ra l atta c k w h ich c h a llen g e d th e D istric t C o u rt’s a u th o rityto se n ten c e in6

acc or dance w i t h t he U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . O urr evi ew of the pl ea c ol l oquy demonstr at es t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcompl i ed w i t h t he mandat es of Feder al R ul e of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 1 1 a n d B o yk i n v . A l a b a m a , 3 9 5 U . S . 2 3 8 , 8 9 S . C t . 1 7 0 9 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . We co n clud e tha t H idalg o ’s plea w as k n o w ing an d v o lun taryan d that tr ial co u n sel’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s n o t d e f

icie n t. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof s ent ence .