Court Opinion

ID: 2964022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:07.711951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:17.763342
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        March 18, 1996          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1671

                              ORLANDO ESPINOSA-SANCHEZ,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Orlando Espinosa-Sanchez on brief pro se.
            ________________________
            Guillermo  Gil, United  States Attorney,  Rosa E.  Rodriguez-Velez
            ______________                            ________________________
        and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
            _________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing the  record
                      __________

            and  the  parties' briefs,  we  affirm  the  judgment of  the

            district  court for  essentially  the reasons  stated in  its

            Opinion and Order.  We add the following comments.

                      1.  The district  court was not required to  hold a

            hearing  on  appellant's  claim that  his  attorney  provided

            ineffective assistance by failing to call as witnesses two of

            appellant's codefendants.  Conspicuously absent  from both of

            the affidavits  of these  codefendants is any  statement that

            either  codefendant   would  have  testified   on  behalf  of

            appellant.   Also missing are averments  that appellant never

            knew  about the cocaine on board the SHEME and that appellant

            never  had  been  told  about  the  drugs.    Indeed, neither

            affidavit is  inconsistent with the government's  position at

            trial that  appellant was part  of the conspiracy  to possess

            with the intent to distribute the cocaine.  Thus, even taking

            the  rest of the allegations  in the affidavits  as true, the

            conclusions  appellant draws  from these facts  are basically

            "self-interested  characterizations."   See United  States v.
                                                    ___ ______________

            McGill, 11 F.3d 223, 225 (1st Cir. 1993) (in deciding whether
            ______

            to  hold   a  hearing,  the   district  court  must   take  a

            petitioner's factual  averments as  true but need  not credit

            "conclusory  allegations,  self-interested  characterizations

            [or] discredited inventions").

                                         -2-

                      Finally,  the case  upon which  appellant primarily

            relies, United  States  v. Yizar,  956  F.2d 230  (11th  Cir.
                    ______________     _____

            1992), is not to the contrary.  In Yizar, there was no doubt,
                                               _____

            unlike  here, that  the  codefendant actually  had said  that

            defendant  was innocent.    Here, in  contrast,  there is  no

            independent corroboration that Estupinan  or Passos-Paternina

            possessed exculpatory  evidence or that appellant  even named

            them as  potential witnesses.   Moreover, the  information in

            their  affidavits hardly  amounts  to a  direct statement  of

            appellant's innocence.

                      2.  Appellant's  claim that his  attorney prevented

            him from taking the stand is supported by only his allegation

            that  his attorney  led  him to  believe  that he  could  not

            testify.  This  is insufficent, without more,  to require the

            district court to hold an evidentiary hearing.   Siciliano v.
                                                             _________

            Vose,  834 F.2d  29, 31  (1st Cir.  1987) (an  affidavit that
            ____

            states  only  that  counsel  refused to  allow  defendant  to

            testify  on  his  own  behalf is  insufficient  to  establish

            defendant's  entitlement to  a hearing  on his  habeas corpus

            petition).  See also Underwood v. Clark, 939 F.2d 473, 475-76
                        ___ ____ _________    _____

            (7th Cir.  1991) (a "barebones assertion"  that a defendant's

            attorney would not let him testify is "too facile a tactic to

            be  allowed  to  succeed";  greater  particularity  and  some

            substantiation are necessary).

                                         -3-

                      Again,  the  cases upon  which  appellant primarily

            relies  do not support his  position.  In  one, United States
                                                            _____________

            v.Walker, 772  F.2d 1172 (5th  Cir. 1985) (a  direct appeal),
              ______

            the defendant had told his attorney that he wished to testify

            and the  attorney had  filed a motion  to reopen the  case to

            allow defendant to take the stand.  The court determined that

            the  trial court  had abused  its discretion  in  denying the

            motion.  Id. at 1176, 1185.  In the other case, United States
                     ___                                    _____________

            v.  Butts,  630  F.Supp. 1145  (D.  Me.  1986)  (a new  trial
                _____

            motion), there  was independent evidence  -- courtroom scenes

            and  counsel's testimony  -- that defendant  consistently had

            demanded to  testify on  his own  behalf.  Id.  at 1146.   As
                                                       ___

            noted  above,  there  is   no  independent  corroboration  of

            appellant's  allegation that  his attorney  told him  that he

            could not testify.

                      3.   The remainder  of appellant's claims  were not

            raised below and therefore will  not be addressed on  appeal.

            See Knight v.  United States, 37 F.3d 769,  772 n.2 (1st Cir.
            ___ ______     _____________

            1994).

                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.  
                                                            ________

                                         -4-