Pena v. United States
- Victor Marrero
- 1:17-cv-03891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Pena v. United States, Judge Marrero denied Pena’s sentence challenges, compassionate-release motion, and request for appointed counsel.
Hector Raymond Pena, whose § 2255 motion, sentence-reduction motion, and request for appointed counsel were all denied; the United States was the respondent.
What happened
In Pena v. United States, Hector Raymond Pena asked the court to set aside his sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge certain sentences. He also sought a sentence reduction because of extraordinary and compelling circumstances and asked for a lawyer to help with that request. Pena was serving concurrent life sentences after a jury convicted him of murder-for-hire and related offenses.
Pena argued that he lacked adequate notice of the charges, that the court should have resentenced him after three firearm-related convictions were vacated, and that his sentencing-guidelines calculation was wrong. He also claimed his trial lawyer was ineffective for not investigating or presenting an alibi defense. For compassionate release, he cited the absence of defense witnesses, his lawyer’s failure to present medical records, his mental state during trial, and medical conditions.
The court denied the sentence-challenge motion, denied the compassionate-release motion, and denied appointed counsel. Judge Marrero ruled that Pena’s new notice argument lacked merit, that his other sentence arguments had already been rejected, and that his medical records and other claims did not show grounds for a sentence reduction.
The detailed version
- Pena v. United States · No. 1:17-cv-03891
- Victor Marrero
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
After a jury trial, Hector Raymond Pena was convicted in 2014 of three counts of murder for hire, two counts of conspiracy to commit murder for hire, and three counts of murder through use of a firearm during a crime of violence. The court imposed concurrent life sentences. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction in 2016.
Pena previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence on specified constitutional or legal grounds. The court denied that motion in 2019. After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, the government conceded that two firearm-related counts could not stand, and the court found that a third such count also had to be vacated. The court entered an amended judgment but did not resentence Pena because the remaining murder-for-hire convictions still required mandatory life sentences. The court also denied an earlier compassionate-release motion.
Pena later sought permission from the Second Circuit to file another § 2255 motion. The Second Circuit determined that permission was unnecessary in light of the amended judgment and directed him to present his claims to the district court. Pena then filed the § 2255 motion at issue here, a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and a request for appointed counsel. The opinion states that Pena was representing himself.
Arguments
Pena raised five arguments under § 2255:
- He claimed that he did not receive adequate notice of the charges, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He argued that the court’s decision not to resentence him after vacating the firearm-related counts amounted to an improper change to the indictment.
- He argued that the failure to resentence him violated due process.
- He challenged the calculation of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.
- He claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or raise an alibi defense.
- He argued that the court had improperly minimized the risk posed by the coronavirus when it denied his earlier compassionate-release motion.
For compassionate release, Pena asserted that there were no witnesses on his behalf, that counsel failed to present his medical records to the jury, and that he was not mentally focused during court proceedings. He also checked boxes stating that he had a terminal illness and serious medical or functional conditions. He attached medical records to support those statements.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected Pena’s notice argument. It explained that an improper change to an indictment occurs when the government’s evidence and the jury instructions modify an essential element of the charged offense so that there is a substantial likelihood of conviction for an offense different from the one charged. The court found that Pena was charged with, and convicted of, the remaining murder-for-hire offenses and that his submissions did not show such a modification.
The court also relied on the prior decisions addressing Pena’s other arguments. It stated that the Second Circuit had already rejected the arguments concerning resentencing, the Guidelines calculation, and the coronavirus-related issue. The court stated that it had previously rejected Pena’s ineffective-assistance claim concerning an alibi defense. The court therefore denied Pena’s § 2255 motion.
The court separately denied compassionate release. It found that Pena’s assertions about witnesses, medical records, and his mental state did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. Although the attached medical records showed many of the same health conditions considered in the earlier compassionate-release decision, the court found that the records did not sufficiently support Pena’s claimed terminal illness or other serious conditions.
The court declined to appoint counsel because Pena had not made a threshold showing that his compassionate-release motion was likely to have merit. The court stated that it reached the same conclusion to the extent Pena also sought counsel for the § 2255 motion.
Disposition
The court ordered that Pena’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under § 2255 was DENIED. It ordered that his motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A) was DENIED. It also ordered that his request for appointment of counsel was DENIED.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.