Opinion ID: 206567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel: Count 27 Sentence

Text: Morales also argues that his appellate counsel unreasonably failed to challenge the life sentence imposed on Count 27, the conspiracy count. We hold that in light of Morales's five other life-sentences, he was not prejudiced by any sentencing error with respect to this count and, therefore, he could not have been prejudiced by his attorney's failure to raise the issue on appeal. As a result, Morales is not eligible for any relief on this claim, and it is unnecessary to determine whether his appellate attorney's performance was deficient. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052. That said, we take this opportunity to point out that it remains an open question in this Circuit whether convictions for substantive drug offenses may be used to clarify an ambiguous jury verdict convicting a defendant of conspiracy to distribute multiple types of drugs. Morales was charged and convicted on Count 27 with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute four different controlled substances: marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and cocaine base. The jury did not return a special verdict identifying which oneor which combinationof the four drugs he conspired to possess. The maximum sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute significant quantities of these controlled substances differs depending on the drug: for marijuana, it is 10 years; for cocaine base, it is life in prison. [12] As noted, the court imposed a life sentence. In his section 2255 motion, Morales argued that his appellate counsel should have contested his Count 27 sentence because it was clearly improper under the law of this Circuit. Specifically, Morales contended that under United States v. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076 (2d Cir.1984), and its progeny, he should have been sentenced for a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute only the drug for which the most lenient statutory sentencing range would be imposedin this case, marijuana. In Orozco-Prada, the defendant was convicted on a count of conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana and cocaine. See id. at 1083. Although the jury's general verdict did not specify which drugs the defendant conspired to possess and distribute, the trial court sentenced him to a prison term in excess of the maximum allowed for a marijuana conspiracy. Id. On appeal, we held that because, in the absence of a special verdict, there was no way for [the trial judge] to know whether the jury intended to convict Eduardo Orozco for a cocaine-related conspiracy, for a marijuana-related conspiracy, or for a conspiracy involving both drugs, the judge should have inferred that the conviction was for the drug conspiracy with the lowest statutory maximum, and sentenced accordingly. Id. at 1083-84. Subsequent cases have affirmed this rule. In United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662 (2d Cir.1998), we considered the case of one of Morales's co-defendants, Christopher Barnes, who was also convicted and sentenced on the same conspiracy count Count 27. Barnes claimed that it was improper for the judge to base the mandatory minimum sentence for that count on a conspiracy related to cocaine base when, like Morales, he was charged with conspiring to possess multiple types of drugs, including those with lesser sentencing ranges. Id. at 667. We agreed, and held that because a general verdict of guilty does not indicate whether the jury convicted the defendant of conspiracy to possess each controlled substance charged in Count 27, the district court should have assumed that the jury convicted the defendant of conspiring to possess the controlled substance that carries the most lenient statutorily prescribed sentence. Id. at 668. We applied this rule again in United States v. Zillgitt, 286 F.3d 128 (2d Cir.2002), on essentially the same facts as in Orozco-Prada. Thus, by the time Morales made his section 2255 motion, it was clear that where a jury returns a guilty verdict on a single count of conspiracy involving multiple controlled substances, the district court must sentence the defendant as if convicted of a conspiracy involving only the substance that carries the lowest statutory sentencing range. Id. at 131. Here, the district court was aware of the rule in Orozco-Prada, but nevertheless found it inapplicable to Morales. Morales, 294 F.Supp.2d at 180-81. Instead, it determined that the appropriate case to follow was United States v. Peters, 617 F.2d 503 (7th Cir.1980), which articulated a rule that the district court believed this Circuit had adopted as an exception to Orozco-Prada. Morales, 294 F.Supp.2d at 181. Peters allows a judge at sentencing to assume that the jury found the defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit any crime for which he was also substantively convicted. 617 F.2d at 506. Applying Peters to Morales's case, the district court concluded that since Morales was also convicted for possessing cocaine base, the court reasonably inferred that the jury convicted Morales for conspiracy to possess cocaine base despite the absence of a special verdict on that count. Morales, 294 F.Supp.2d at 181 (citation omitted). We write to clarify that we have not yet expressly adopted any exception to the rule concerning general verdicts on multiple-drug conspiracy counts set forth in Orozco-Prada. In Orozco-Prada, we addressed Peters to distinguish it, but we did not adopt its holding. Our treatment of Peters was limited to stating that the case at hand was unlike United States v. Peters ,  and we provided a short description of Peters ' holding to show how the case was different. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d at 1084. The fact that we did not adopt Peters is made clear by our decision in Zillgitt where we stated, [w]e need not decide here whether convictions on substantive charges could serve to clarify an ambiguous verdict. . . . 286 F.3d at 136 n. 6. If indeed we had adopted Peters or a similar exception to Orozco-Prada, this would not have remained an open question. Based on our disposition of Morales's ineffective assistance Count 27 sentencing claims, we see no reason to resolve the question now. Unlike the case of Morales's co-defendant Barnes, the propriety of Morales's sentence on Count 27 is not directly before us. Moreover, while the parties partially briefed the question of whether this Circuit had adopted Peters in the past, neither side engaged in any substantive discussion about whetherin the event that we had notwe should adopt Peters going forward. Given these considerations, we will wait until the issue is squarely before us before deciding it.