Opinion ID: 688166
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Subpoena Witnesses or Request an Evidentiary Hearing

Text: 15 For the first time, Malizzio argues on appeal that his counsel's performance at sentencing was deficient because the attorney failed to subpoena witnesses or request an evidentiary hearing to show that Malizzio did not use the gun during the extortion. Initially, we note that Malizzio waived this argument by failing to raise it in his Sec. 2255 motion before the district court. See Pierce v. United States, 976 F.2d 369, 370 n.2 (7th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Borre v. United States, 940 F.2d 215, 224 (7th Cir. 1991). 16 Even if Malizzio could overcome this waiver problem, he still cannot satisfy the prejudice prong under Strickland. Although Malizzio asserts that his counsel failed to subpoena witnesses who would have buttressed his account of the events, he does not specifically state what these witnesses would have said. Malizzio did not attach to his Sec. 2255 motion, for instance, any affidavits setting forth what testimony the witnesses would have provided if subpoenaed. Although Malizzio now asserts (for the first time) that he had put the gun in the brown paper bag days before and put it under the seat because he was transporting it from one place to another, (Appellant's Br. at 2), we have only his word to support this. Such conclusory allegations, particularly at this stage of the proceedings, do not satisfy Strickland's prejudice requirement. See United States v. Asubonteng, 895 F.2d 424, 429 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1089 (1990). Furthermore, Malizzio has not shown that his counsel disregarded, overlooked, or even knew of any exculpatory evidence or testimony. See Barkauskas v. Lane, 946 F.2d 1292, 1295 (7th Cir. 1991). Because Malizzio has failed to demonstrate that his counsel's deficient performance rendered the proceeding unfair, we need proceed no further in considering this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Degaglia v. United States, 7 F.3d 609, 613 (7th Cir. 1993). 17 B. Failure to Challenge Sentencing Enhancement Based upon a Firearm Charge of Which Petitioner Was Acquitted 18 Malizzio also asserts that because the jury acquitted him of carrying a firearm to facilitate the extortion, his counsel should have contested the district court's enhancement of his sentence under Guideline Sec. 1B1.3(a)(2) 3 by three points. 19 Contrary to Malizzio's assertion, his counsel did contest the district court's consideration at sentencing of Malizzio's use of a firearm. As the district court pointed out, Malizzio's counsel filed objections to the pre-sentence investigation report and disputed, specifically, the probation officer's recommendation of a three-point enhancement under Sec. 1B1.3(a)(2) because Malizzio never displayed the weapon nor was the weapon ever seen or known to be used before or after so as to become 'part of a course of conduct or common scheme' as required in the guideline. (Defendant Malizzio Comments Regarding Pre-Sentence Investigation with Attachments, R. 122 at 2, p e.) Defense counsel again objected to the enhancement under the Guidelines at Malizzio's sentencing hearing: 20 My point and Mr. Malizzio's point is the gun was not used nor carried as the guideline would suggest, for the purpose of scaring Mr. Barack in a furtherance of this scheme. If, in fact, as the government says, the gun was there because he was protecting money and if the Court rules that way, well, then that's fine. But I don't think that's enough for Your Honor to tack on the three points that the probation officer suggests. 21 (Sentencing Hearing of 9/16/91, Tr. at 11-12.) 22 Even if defense counsel had not objected to the district court's consideration of Malizzio's use of a firearm, Malizzio still could not prevail on this ineffective assistance claim because an objection to this enhancement would not have affected the court's sentencing determination. This circuit has held that a sentencing court may consider all relevant conduct for which a defendant was charged, even if the defendant were acquitted of those charges. United States v. Masters, 978 F.2d 281, 285-86 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2333 (1993); United States v. Banks, 964 F.2d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Fonner, 920 F.2d 1330, 1332-33 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 470 (1992). At sentencing, the conduct which the government seeks to have the court consider as relevant need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Banks, 964 F.2d at 692. Here, the district court could reach a determination about Malizzio's use of the firearm based upon the information provided in the presentence report and Malizzio's own admission that he kept the gun under the seat in his car. We agree with the district judge that this evidence is sufficient for sentencing purposes to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Malizzio displayed his gun to Barack in order to frighten him. Thus no prejudice occurred. 23 Citing United States v. Brady, 928 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1991), Malizzio also argues that the sentencing enhancement was inappropriate because he did not know that a firearm was in the car at the time of the extortion. In Brady, the Ninth Circuit vacated an upward departure from the Guidelines based on a factual finding by the district court that effectively overruled the jury's decision to acquit. Id. at 850-51 (We would pervert our system of justice if we allowed a defendant to suffer punishment for a criminal charge for which he or she was acquitted.). Although the divided panel in Brady prohibited district judges from considering conduct of which a person has been acquitted, id., this court has explicitly disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision. United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1066 (7th Cir. 1992) (Brady-styled argument that court must disregard prior act has no support here). 24 Accordingly, we reject Malizzio's claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing in failing to challenge the district court's consideration of a sentencing enhancement based upon Malizzio's use of the firearm during the extortion.