Court Opinion

ID: 2965974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:47:09.078172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:08.186247
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1832
   

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                     LUIS ANGEL TORRES-OTERO,
                         a/k/a EL ENAMO,
                        a/k/a LITTLE LUIS,
                           a/k/a PRIMO,

                      Defendant, Appellant.

No. 98-2012

                      LUIS A. TORRES-OTERO,

                      Petitioner, Appellant,

                                v.

                          UNITED STATES,

                      Respondent, Appellee.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

          [Hon. Héctor M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before
                      Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                 Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Peter Goldberger, with whom Pamela A. Wilk was on brief, for
Torres-Otero.

     Grace Chung Becker, Trial Attorney, United States Department
of Justice, for the United States.

September 16, 1999

                                
                                

                                                                   Per Curiam.  In this opinion we address the issue of the
course to take in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in
Peguero v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 961 (1999).  The Court held
that, "petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief based on a Rule
32(a)(2) violation when he had independent knowledge of the right
to appeal and so was not prejudiced by the trial court's omission." 
Id. at 965.
  We had before us consolidated appeals arising from
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which the district court
determined that defendant Luis Torres-Otero (Torres) had not, at
his original sentencing in 1992, been informed by the district
court of his right to appeal.  As a remedy for this violation, the
district court denied Torres's request that he be resentenced and,
over Torres's objection, ordered the clerk to file a notice of
appeal on Torres's behalf.
  Before we address the main subject of this opinion, we
must first consider the government's challenge to our jurisdiction
to hear the appeals.  The government contends that AEDPA deprives
this court of jurisdiction over the appeal of the denial of
Torres's § 2255 motion because AEDPA precluded a "second or
successive" § 2255 motion unless certain preconditions, not present
here, were met.  We disagree because we conclude that the matter
before us is not a "second or successive" § 2255 motion.  Rather,
we find it a final decision on Torres's first § 2255 motion, albeit
a decision issued as a result of a motion to reconsider.
  The district court characterized its failure to have
advised Torres of his right to appeal as "per se error."  It held: 
"A criminal defendant is automatically entitled to relief if he was
not advised at sentencing of his right to appeal."  Dist. Ct. Op.
D.P.R., June 16, 1998.
  The decision in Peguero, issued on March 2, 1999, was
subsequent to the district court opinion and prior to oral argument
in the appeal before us.  There can be no doubt that Peguero is
binding on us.
  In Peguero the Court stated:
    Trial judges must be meticulous and precise in
  following each of the requirements of Rule 32
  in every case.  It is undisputed, then, that
  the court's failure to give the required
  advice was error.

Id. at 964.  Immediately following this admonition, the Court
stated:
       A violation of Rule 32(a)(2), however, does
  not entitle a defendant to collateral relief
  in all circumstances.  Our precedents
  establish, as a general rule, that a court's
  failure to give a defendant advice required by
  the Federal Rules is a sufficient basis for
  collateral relief only when the defendant is
  prejudiced by the court's error.

Id. 
  In the course of its opinion the Court rejected the
argument that, "a Rule 32(a)(2) oversight, though nonprejudicial,
automatically entitles the defendant to habeas relief."  Id. at
965.  
  The court then made the following statement:
    Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
  Procedure prohibits federal courts from
  granting relief based on errors that "d[o] not
  affect substantial rights."  See Rule 52(a)
  ("Any error, defect, irregularity or variance
  which does not affect substantial rights shall
  be disregarded"); see also Bank of Nova Scotia 
  v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254-55, 108 S.
  Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988) ("[A] federal
  court may not invoke supervisory power to
  circumvent the harmless-error inquiry
  prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal
  Procedure 52(a). . . .  Rule 52 is, in every
  pertinent respect, as binding as any statute
  duly enacted by Congress, and federal courts
  have no more discretion to disregard the
  Rule's mandate than they do to disregard
  constitutional or statutory provisions").

Id. at 965.
  In light of the holding of Peguero and its teaching we
feel constrained to remand this case to the district court for a
factual inquiry as to whether Torres-Otero knew that he had a right
to appeal notwithstanding the district court's failure to so advise
him.  If he had such knowledge then the sentencing appeal is moot. 
If he did not know of his right to appeal, we will proceed to
decide the sentencing appeal.
  We hesitate to tell the district court how to conduct
such a factual hearing.  We point out the obvious.  The hearing
shall be conducted as would any other factual hearing under the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  If Torres-Otero denies that
he had knowledge of his right to appeal, the government has the
burden of proving otherwise.
                     So Ordered.