Court Opinion

ID: 9495739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:09:18.09163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:10.537002
License: Public Domain

KAPLAN, District Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
This appeal, in my view, turns on whether the district court erred in rejecting defendant Pham’s contention that his trial counsel provided inadequate representation because he failed to pursue plea discussions on defendant’s behalf and to communicate a plea offer. The majority agrees that the district court “abused its discretion in its selective consideration of the record and its failure even to draw upon existing parts of the record to support its conclusions,” including its conclusion that Pham’s counsel did not provide inadequate representation. Judge Soto-mayor, indeed, regards the current record as inadequate to justify such a conclusion. I regard the record as more than adequate to resolve this matter and find no fault in the district court’s consideration of the evidence. I concur in the judgment, however, because it is unclear whether the district court’s finding that Pham failed to establish that his counsel’s representation fell below the constitutionally required minimum was intended to survive the last of Pham’s submissions below. In my view, an explicit finding on this point, without expansion of the record, would be sufficient to warrant affirmance of the judgment.
I
The detañed procedural history of this case is pivotal to the proper analysis of this appeal, as it is highly relevant to the *189district court’s decision not to hold a full evidentiary hearing before denying Pham’s habeas petition.

A. The Indictments and Trial

Pham and six other defendants were charged on May 10, 1995 with conspiracy and a variety of other offenses in a thirteen count, sixth superceding indictment. Pham and three of his co-defendants were brought before the district judge on May 15, 1995 for a pretrial conference. Shortly thereafter, the grand jury returned a seventh superceding indictment naming Pham and eight other defendants. Pham and four others were arraigned before the district judge on that date.

B. The Suppression Hearing

Prior to trial, Pham moved to suppress evidence of custodial statements, contending that he was unable fully to (a) understand an English language Miranda advice of rights form, and (b) “understand or grasp the contents and nature of the advice of rights which was written in Vietnamese.” After hearing testimony from an FBI agent who had presented Pham with the forms and from Pham, the district court made detailed findings to the effect that Pham carefully read and understood the Vietnamese form and that the English form was read to and understood by him. He specifically found, “[biased on my observation of defendant Pham, [that] I do not accept his testimony to the extent that it is to the contrary.”

C. The Trial

During the course of July and August 1995, all of the defendants on the sixth and seventh superceding indictments save Pham, Nhat Due Nguyen and two fugitives pleaded guilty. Thus, by the time Pham went to trial on September 28, 1995, Pham knew that all but one of his co-defendants (other than the fugitives) were not being tried with him.

D.The New Trial Motion and Hearing

Pham was convicted in October 1995 and promptly moved for a new trial, contending that he had been deprived of his right to testify in his own defense by the error or misconduct of the Vietnamese interpreter. In his moving affidavit, he contended that he had relied upon the interpreter to aid him in conversing with his trial counsel, Mr. Siegel, and that he failed to take the stand in his own defense because the interpreter, in relaying remarks the interpreter attributed to Siegel, said “your attorney does not want you to come out and testify. If you do come out and testify, it would hurt you, it would not be beneficial to you.” According to Pham, Siegel told him in a subsequent conversation that Sie-gel never had said any such thing, a statement corroborated by an affidavit from Siegel.
The district judge held an evidentiary hearing on Pham’s claim. The interpreter testified that he never had interpreted any conversation concerning whether Pham should testify at trial.4 Pham, in contrast, testified that the interpreter in question had translated a conversation between Pham and Siegel concerning whether Pham should take the stand and that the interpreter had told Pham that Siegel did not want Pham to testify “because it will be bad for your case.”5 At the conclusion *190of the hearing, the court found that (1) the interpreter never translated any conversations between Pham and Siegel, nor said anything at all to Pham, about whether Pham should testify, and (2) Siegel had advised Pham that he had a right to testify in his own behalf and gave “no recommendation or instruction as to whether he should testify or not.” It concluded that so much “of the motion which rests on Mr. Pham’s affidavit of November 27th, 1995 should be denied on the facts and the law

E. The Sentencing

Pham came on for sentencing on November 12, 1997, more than two years after his conviction. The minutes reflect that he had the presentence report and, indeed, that it had been translated into Vietnamese and a copy of that version provided to him. Pham stated that he had been over the PSR with Siegel. The PSR disclosed that most of his co-defendants had pleaded guilty and, in some cases, the sentences imposed. Yet Pham suggested no dissatisfaction with Siegel’s representation, let alone that Siegel had failed to pursue a plea bargain on his behalf.

F. The Section 2255 Motion

Pham filed this motion on November 29, 1999. Insofar as it is relevant here, the petition and supporting papers asserted that Pham “[fjrom the very beginning of the proceedings” instructed Siegel to seek a plea bargain with the government, but that Siegel never told him whether he had done so or what, if any, response the government made. By order dated April 11, 2000, the district court rejected this claim on the alternative grounds that Pham had “not demonstrated that his counsel’s performance was outside the wide range of reasonable professional judgment” or that he was prejudiced by any failure to seek a plea agreement. It denied the motion and a certificate of appealability.
Pham then filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a certificate of appealability. The latter, an unsworn document, reiterated Pham’s contention that his lawyer had not pursued a plea bargain with the government. It asserted also, for the first time, that Pham had heard from “a reliable source” that the government had offered him the opportunity to plead guilty and receive a five year sentence, but counsel never had communicated that offer to him. Some time later, Pham filed a supplement to the motion for a certificate of appeala-bility to which he attached a copy of a letter, dated June 14, 1995, from the Assistant United States Attorney to the defendants’ counsel. The letter offered Pham and his co-defendants an opportunity to plead guilty, conditioned on acceptance by all, under an arrangement pursuant to which Pham’s guideline range would have been 78 to 97 months of imprisonment.
The government responded by submitting, inter alia, a declaration of Siegel in which he stated that he and Pham “had numerous meetings and conversations to discuss trial strategy as well as possible plea offers,” that he had advised Pham of “all plea offers made by the government,” that he had sent Pham a copy of the written global plea offer that Pham had attached to his supplement to his motion for a certificate of appealability, and that Pham repeatedly refused to consider pleading guilty. The declaration contained a copy of Siegel’s letter transmitting the government’s written plea offer to Pham. On October 12, 2000, the district court *191found that Pham’s “lawyer responsibly and timely brought the government’s plea offer to his attention” and again denied a certificate of appealability.
Meanwhile, Pham had prepared a response to the government’s submission, which arrived following the entry of the October 12 order. In another unsworn letter, he denied that he had received Sie-gel’s letter transmitting the global plea offer. He asserted that FCI Otisville required inmates to sign for correspondence from attorneys and thus should have records that would corroborate his denial of receipt. He contended that Siegel never had visited him at Otisville, as allegedly would have been apparent from a review of the visitors’ log. Finally, he maintained that, were a hearing held, he would call “the Vietnamese interpreter,” who would “testify that she never visited me with Mr. Siegel at FCI Otisville.” He did not, however, deny that he had discussed the possibility of a guilty plea with Siegel at other locations.
In a memorandum endorsement dated November 2, 2000, the district court recited the history of Pham’s plea bargaining contention and acknowledged receipt of his letter denying receipt of the global plea offer. Rather than again addressing the conflict between the accounts of Pham and Mr. Siegel, however, the district judge assumed arguendo that Pham’s assertions were true, but denied the renewed application on the ground that Pham had faded to establish prejudice in that he had not demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the plea offer.
II
The threshold question therefore is whether the district court erred in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on Pham’s contention that his trial counsel did not render effective assistance in connection with plea discussions, assuming ar-guendo that a failure to follow a client’s instruction to pursue a plea bargain would constitute constitutionally deficient representation.
The panel appears to be united in the view that district courts enjoy discretion in determining whether a testimonial hearing is necessary to resolve a Section 2255 motion that presents a disputed question of fact. See, e.g., Chang v. United States, 250 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir.2001). While the limits of such discretion, perhaps, are not entirely clear, the Supreme Court has made plain that no hearing is required, such as in this case, where the allegations are too vague, conclusory, or “palpably incredible.” E.g., Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495-96, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962). That proposition, in my view, is sufficient to dispose of Pham’s contention that his trial counsel failed to pursue a plea bargain.
Pham claims that he instructed Mr. Sie-gel “from the very beginning of the proceedings” to pursue a plea bargain with the government. Yet he did not raise any question about Siegel’s alleged failure to do so — this despite his claim that Siegel never reported back to him about any such effort — until November 1999, more than four years later and well after the hearings on his suppression and new trial motions. This in itself is powerful evidence that Pham’s contention is a belated afterthought, invented years later. But, there is even more persuasive proof.
Pham knew when he went to trial in September 1995 that several of his co-defendants, including individuals present when he was arraigned in July, were absent and that the only other defendant on trial with him was Nhat Due Nguyen. The inference that he knew that they had pleaded guilty — which was a matter of *192public record is compelling, which would make his silence on this issue until November 1999 even more damning. In the last analysis, however, even this inference is unnecessary.
Pham came on for sentencing more than two years after his conviction. The minutes reflect that he had the presentence report and, indeed, that it had been translated into Vietnamese and a copy of that version provided to him. He stated that he had been over the PSR with his counsel. The PSR disclosed that most of his co-defendants had pleaded guilty and, in some cases, the sentences imposed. Nevertheless, there still was no suggestion that Siegel had disregarded Pham’s instructions to pursue a plea bargain.
If Pham really had been interested in negotiating a plea “from the very beginning” but had heard nothing back from Siegel, his failure to raise that contention prior to trial and, certainly, at or before sentencing would be inexplicable. Even more inexplicable would be his failure to raise the issue during the two additional years that passed between his sentencing and the filing of this motion. This alone, in my view, renders his claim “palpably incredible.” Moreover, the district court already had held two evidentiary hearings at which Pham had testified — one on the motion to suppress and the other on Pham’s new trial motion — and found his testimony unworthy of belief on both occasions.
In all the circumstances, the district court surely did not abuse its discretion in rejecting, without an evidentiary hearing, Pham’s contention that Siegel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to pursue a plea bargain. Section 2255 “does not strip the district courts of all discretion to exercise their common sense.” Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 495, 82 S.Ct. 510.
Ill
The question then becomes whether Pham’s final submission, in which he denied both receipt of the global plea offer and that Siegel had visited him at Otisville, changed anything.
Certainly, Pham’s contention that Siegel never had visited him at Otisville raised no material issue of fact. Siegel swore only that he had had numerous discussions and meetings with Pham and had kept him fully apprized about the possibility of a plea bargain, not that he had visited him at Otisville.6 So the matter boils down to Pham’s contention that Siegel’s letter with the copy of the written plea offer never reached him and his implicit assertion that he never discussed it with Siegel.
The majority focuses on Pham’s contention that he never received Siegel’s letter and that this could be verified by checking records at FCI Otisville and then proceeds to fault the district court for “merely credit[ing] the affirmation of Pham’s trial counsel over Pham’s affirmation.” In my view, however, the dispute over the letter is a red herring, and the characterization of the district court’s treatment of the conflict between Pham and Siegel is inaccurate.
To begin, the question whether Pham received Siegel’s letter at Otisville is beside the point. Siegel’s letter was dated June 16, 1995. Pham appeared in court with Siegel on July 11 and August 16, 1995 as well as for the suppression hearing and trial, which began in late September. There was ample opportunity for him and *193Siegel to have discussed plea bargains in general and the government’s written plea offer in particular. The real question is whether Siegel communicated the offer to him, not whether Pham received a written copy at Otisville. So, I find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s failure to require production of mail records from FCI Otisville or otherwise to pursue additional evidence regarding the question whether Siegel’s letter, the authenticity of which was unquestioned, ever actually reached Pham.7
The suggestion that the district court simply credited Siegel’s declaration over Pham’s letter, as I see it, is flawed in two respects. First, while the district court’s October 12 order certainly credited Sie-gel’s account over Pham’s, its November 2 order — which was prompted by Pham’s contention that he never received Siegel’s letter with the copy of the written plea offer — did not explicitly revisit the credibility issue. It assumed arguendo the truth of Pham’s assertion regarding the letter and went off instead on the ground that Pham would not have pleaded guilty in any case and therefore was not prejudiced by any deficiency. Thus, it is unclear whether the district court, upon consideration of all of the submissions, intended to adhere to its findings that Sie-gel’s account was accurate and that Pham’s implicit assertion that the plea offer never was communicated to him was false. Second, assuming that the district court meant to adhere to its prior finding that Siegel had kept Pham fully informed about plea discussions and possibilities, it certainly did not “merely credit[] the affirmation of Pham’s trial counsel over Pham’s affirmation.” It had the benefit not only of Siegel’s declaration, but of the utter improbability of Pham’s claim in light of the lengthy delay in raising it, particularly when measured against his insistence that he told Siegel to pursue a plea from “the very beginning of the proceedings,” and of two evidentiary hearings, both of which resulted in findings that prior claims by Pham were false.8
For these reasons, I cannot join in the reasoning of either of the other opinions. Nevertheless, I find troublesome the lack of a finding in the November 2 order that Pham, notwithstanding his final submission, was fully apprized of the global plea offer. While I believe the district court would have been justified in making such a finding on the existing record, we may not simply assume that it did so. I therefore join in vacating and remanding for further proceedings. If, on remand, the district court were to make such a finding, even on the present record, I would regard that *194finding as sufficient and dispositive of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

. The closest he came to any such subject was to relay to Pham a message from Mr. Bogatin, who was representing co-defendant Nhat Due Nguyen, that Pham should not “ask Mr. Nhan Due Nguyen to testify because it is bad for his case.”

. Siegel then testified that the interpreter in question did translate a conversation in which *190Siegel advised Pham of his right to testify, but that he had told Pham the decision on whether to take the stand was Pham's.

. Pham of course was at the courthouse in New York City for pretrial and post-trial hearings, the trial and his sentencing. There is no suggestion in the record that he was incarcerated only at Otisville.

. Judge Sotomayor argues that the question whether Pham received Siegel's letter with the copy of the global plea offer while he was at Otisville is significant. The argument, however, ignores the fact that the important issue is whether Pham knew of and discussed the offer with his counsel, not whether he had received the copy of the government’s letter while he was at Otisville. The concurrence simply disregards, without acknowledging, the undisputed opportunities for such communication while Pham was in New York for court appearances.

. Thus, to suggest, as does Judge Sotomayor’s concurrence, that it would be wrong to resolve credibility issues "against a petitioner based solely on the district court's previous interactions with” the petitioner, I respectfully submit, misses the point, just as does Judge Pooler's contention that the district court simply credited Siegel's declaration over Pham's letter. Neither description is accurate. Rather, this case presents an unusual and perhaps unique confluence of mutually reinforcing factors including Pham’s previous false testimony, the improbability of his story, and the long delay in asserting the claim notwithstanding his awareness of facts which would have prompted its earlier assertion if it were accurate — all of which strongly suggest that Pham’s claim was a fabrication.