Court Opinion

ID: 9383546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 17:00:45.429377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:46.174901
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 21-4105     Document: 010110835576          Date Filed: 03/30/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                              March 30, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                            No. 21-4105
                                                     (D.C. Nos. 2:20-CV-00605-DBB &
  ALAN EDUARDO CHAVARIN,                                    2:16-CR-609-DB-1)
                                                                  (D. Utah)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Alan Eduardo Chavarin, a federal prisoner, appeals from a district court order

 denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for possessing

 heroin with intent to distribute. This court issued a certificate of appealability (COA) as

 to whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the plea stage. Exercising

 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, we affirm.

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 21-4105     Document: 010110835576         Date Filed: 03/30/2023      Page: 2

                                       BACKGROUND

        During a routine traffic stop, officers discovered 8.4 pounds of heroin in

 Chavarin’s vehicle. The government charged him with one count of possessing heroin

 with intent to distribute, which carried a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence and a

 maximum of life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(i). Chavarin retained

 defense counsel.

        Defense counsel engaged in plea negotiations with the government, where the

 mandatory minimum sentence was a main issue. The prosecutor told counsel that

 Chavarin faced the mandatory 10-year minimum because he was not safety-valve

 eligible. Counsel sought to confirm that Chavarin faced “a mandatory 10 years.”

 R., vol. I at 131. The prosecutor replied that he would be “shocked” if Chavarin could

 avoid the minimum sentence, and at sentencing he would likely “recommend the ten

 years,” id. at 129. The discussions failed to produce a deal, and Chavarin went to trial,

 where the focus was his motivation for transporting the heroin.

        Chavarin testified that he was transporting the heroin under duress for a drug

 cartel who had threatened him and his family. But on cross-examination, he was unable

 to provide details about the threats, and he admitted not mentioning the threats to officers

 while telling them he was transporting the heroin to pay off a debt. The jury rejected his

 duress defense and convicted him as charged.

        At sentencing, the district court gave Chavarin a two-level obstruction-of-justice

 enhancement for asserting a bogus defense, resulting in a total offense level of 34. Based

 on that offense level and Chavarin’s category III criminal history, the resulting guidelines

                                              2
Appellate Case: 21-4105     Document: 010110835576          Date Filed: 03/30/2023       Page: 3

 sentencing range was 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The district judge sentenced

 Chavarin at the low end of the range, 188 months’ imprisonment, and stated that he

 would have imposed a 10-year sentence but for Chavarin taking “th[e] witness stand and

 actually committ[ing] perjury.” R., vol. IV at 123. This court affirmed. See United

 States v. Chavarin, 810 F. App’x 631, 633 (10th Cir. 2020).

        Chavarin then filed a pro se § 2255 motion in the district court to vacate his

 conviction and sentence. Among other things, Chavarin argued that defense counsel

 provided ineffective assistance because “pleading guilty was never discussed with

 [him].” R., vol. I at 36. Counsel allegedly advised him he “had nothing to loose [sic]” by

 going to trial because “for both trial and guilty plea, [he] would be given the same ten

 (10) years’ maximum sentence.” Id. at 35-36 (emphasis added; quotation marks omitted).

 According to Chavarin, if counsel had properly advised him, he would have pled guilty

 and would have faced a guidelines range of 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment, based on

 his category III criminal history and a base offense level of 32, reduced to 29 for

 acceptance of responsibility. See id. at 42. The government filed an opposition brief,

 attaching emails between defense counsel and the prosecutor regarding their plea

 communications.

        The district court ordered the parties “to submit the evidence they would otherwise

 present under oath at an evidentiary hearing to address” Chavarin’s § 2255 claims.

 Suppl. R. at 2. Chavarin responded that he did “not have any new evidence,” and he

 directed the court’s attention to the emails between the prosecutor and defense counsel.

 R., vol. I at 238. The government submitted a declaration from defense counsel, who

                                              3
Appellate Case: 21-4105     Document: 010110835576          Date Filed: 03/30/2023     Page: 4

 said he visited Chavarin at least four times while he was in custody and that many of their

 discussions concerned “pierc[ing] the ten-year minimum mandatory sentence he was

 subjected to by virtue of his criminal charge.” Id. at 243. Regarding “Chavarin’s

 assertion that his sentence would be the same whether he proceeded to trial or not,

 [defense counsel] d[id] not have a recollection of specific conversations.” Id. at 244.

 Counsel did assert, however, that “[a]ny plea offers made by the prosecution were

 conveyed to Mr. Chavarin” and that his discussions with Chavarin included “possible

 options as well as potential concerns of proceeding to trial.” Id. at 243-44.

        The district court denied Chavarin’s § 2255 motion without a hearing, concluding

 that Chavarin failed to show that defense counsel’s representation was deficient, given

 that his allegations were contradicted by the record, his own briefing, and defense

 counsel’s declaration. The district court declined to issue a COA.

        This court granted Chavarin a COA to consider “[w]hether counsel provided

 ineffective assistance at the plea stage, including when advising Mr. Chavarin about the

 sentencing advantages and disadvantages of pursuing a plea agreement.” Order at 1,

 United States v. Chavarin (10th Cir. June 27, 2022).

                                        DISCUSSION
                                   I. Standard of Review

        We review de novo a district court order denying § 2255 postconviction relief

 “where, as here, the district court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, but rather denies

 the motion as a matter of law upon an uncontested trial record.” United States v. Rushin,

 642 F.3d 1299, 1302 (10th Cir. 2011).

                                              4
Appellate Case: 21-4105        Document: 010110835576         Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 5

                             II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

        “Defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, a right that extends to the

 plea-bargaining process.” Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 162 (2012). “To establish an

 ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, one must show both deficient performance and

 resultant prejudice to the defendant.” United States v. Babcock, 40 F.4th 1172, 1176

 (10th Cir. 2022).

        “Deficient performance is representation that falls below an objective standard of

 reasonableness.” Id. at 1176-77 (internal quotation marks omitted). In regard to

 “prejudice[,] a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for

 counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

 Lafler, 566 U.S. at 163 (internal quotation marks omitted).1

        Chavarin argues that “[r]easonably effective assistance required counsel to advise

 [him] that he faced a potential sentence at trial of well above 10 years.” Aplt. Suppl.

 Opening Br. at 9. He maintains “that a reasonably competent attorney would have known

 that [he] was exposed to a penalty of more than 10 years’ imprisonment and would have

        1
            Where the prejudice alleged is rejecting a plea offer and going to trial,

        a defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice of counsel there is
        a reasonable probability that . . . [he] would have accepted the plea and the
        prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening
        circumstances[], that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the
        conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been
        less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed
        [at trial].
 Lafler, 566 U.S. at 164.
                                                 5
Appellate Case: 21-4105      Document: 010110835576         Date Filed: 03/30/2023       Page: 6

 explained that to [him] during plea negotiations.” Id. Chavarin concludes that because

 “no evidence before the [district] court rebutted [his] statement that counsel failed to

 provide such advice,” id., the district court abused its discretion by not holding an

 evidentiary hearing, id. at 6, 10.

        To the extent Chavarin faults the district court for not conducting an evidentiary

 hearing, that issue is beyond the scope of the COA and we decline to consider it. See

 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3) (confining review to the “specific issue[s]” outlined in the COA);

 see, e.g., Eaton v. Pacheco, 931 F.3d 1009, 1031 (10th Cir. 2019) (declining to address a

 Brady claim that fell outside the scope of issues designated in the COA); Zakrzewski v.

 McNeil, 573 F.3d 1210, 1211 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Petitioner contends that the district

 court abused its discretion by finding facts without holding an evidentiary hearing. We

 doubt an abuse occurred, but we decline to examine the arguments because they are

 beyond the scope of the COA.”).

        As for Chavarin’s claim that defense counsel performed deficiently in regard to

 advising him about the potential sentence he faced by proceeding to trial, we conclude

 the district court did not err. The email communications between defense counsel and the

 prosecutor show defense counsel’s understanding that Chavarin faced a minimum

 sentence of ten years’ imprisonment—whether he pled guilty or went to trial. Defense

 counsel’s declaration indicated there were multiple discussions with Chavarin on that

 same topic. And the district judge at sentencing indicated he would have imposed no

 more than that sentence had Chavarin not lied on the stand in support of his duress

                                               6
Appellate Case: 21-4105      Document: 010110835576          Date Filed: 03/30/2023        Page: 7

 defense. Finally, counsel’s declaration recounted that he relayed to Chavarin any plea

 offers from the government and they discussed the risks of proceeding to trial.

        Chavarin does not identify any evidence showing that defense counsel advised

 him that his sentencing exposure was limited to ten years’ imprisonment no matter how

 he proceeded.2 “[W]e remain suspicious of bald, post hoc and unsupported statements

 that a defendant would have [pled guilty] absent counsel’s errors . . . .” Heard v.

 Addison, 728 F.3d 1170, 1184 (10th Cir. 2013). “Absent a showing to the contrary,” we

 presume that “an attorney’s conduct is objectively reasonable because it could be

 considered part of a legitimate trial strategy.” Babcock, 40 F.4th at 1177 (internal

 quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[c]ounsel’s performance must be completely

 unreasonable to be constitutionally ineffective, not merely wrong.” Wilson v. Sirmons,

 536 F.3d 1064, 1083 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Chavarin has

 not shown that defense counsel’s performance during the plea stage was completely

 unreasonable. At most, counsel rendered “an erroneous strategic prediction about the

 outcome of . . . trial,” Lafler, 566 U.S. at 174, which, by itself, does not constitute

 deficient performance, see United States v. Parker, 720 F.3d 781, 787 n.9 (10th Cir.

 2013) (explaining that “[a] miscalculation or erroneous sentence estimation by defense

 counsel is not a constitutionally deficient performance,” whereas “counsel’s failure to

        2
         To the extent Chavarin’s ineffective-assistance claim includes that defense
 counsel “never discussed” pleading guilty, R., vol. I at 36, the undisputed record
 evidence shows otherwise. See id. at 35-36 (Chavarin’s district court brief,
 acknowledging that counsel’s advice involved “both trial and guilty plea”); id. at 243
 (counsel’s declaration, explaining that “[t]he purpose of [his] visits” with Chavarin
 involved discussing the option of a guilty plea).
                                                7
Appellate Case: 21-4105    Document: 010110835576         Date Filed: 03/30/2023     Page: 8

 understand the basic structure and mechanics of the sentencing guidelines can rise to

 deficient performance under Strickland” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

                                        CONCLUSION

       We affirm the district court’s judgment and grant Chavarin’s motion for leave to

 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Timothy M. Tymkovich
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             8