Bazemore v. United States

Background

William Bazemore, who was representing himself, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. In the related criminal case, he had pleaded guilty to sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(1). The parties’ plea agreement treated him as a career offender because the sex-trafficking offense and prior convictions were identified as crimes of violence. The court sentenced him to 327 months in prison, which was the top of the stipulated Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months.

Bazemore argued that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because his lawyers did not adequately explain whether sex trafficking qualified as a crime of violence or how that classification could affect his sentence. He also argued that neither his sex-trafficking conviction nor a prior New York gang-assault conviction qualified as a crime of violence, and that his lawyers failed to raise those issues properly.

Rulings on the Claims

The court held that Bazemore’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea was barred by the mandate rule. That rule prevents a defendant from relitigating an issue that was already decided, expressly or implicitly, on direct appeal. The court said the Second Circuit had already considered Bazemore’s argument that his lawyers misled him about whether the sex-trafficking offense could be treated as a crime of violence.

The court nevertheless addressed the plea claim in the alternative. To establish that ineffective assistance of counsel made a guilty plea unknowing or involuntary, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and that, without the error, he probably would have rejected the plea and gone to trial. The court found that Bazemore’s lawyers had discussed the available plea options and the uncertainty about the crime-of-violence issue. It also relied on his sworn statements during the plea hearing that he understood the consequences and was pleading guilty voluntarily. The court therefore found that his plea was knowing and voluntary. The court separately rejected claims concerning a prior felony and appeal rights, stating that the record did not support his argument about the prior offense and that his plea-hearing statements showed he understood his right to appeal after a trial conviction.

As to the career-offender and sentencing arguments, the court did not decide whether the offenses qualified as crimes of violence. Instead, it enforced the plea agreement’s waiver of Bazemore’s right to appeal or collaterally challenge any sentence within or below the stipulated range. Because his 327-month sentence was within that range, the court declined to consider the merits of those challenges. It applied the same reasoning to claims framed as ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing or on appeal, explaining that a defendant cannot avoid a sentencing waiver merely by presenting a challenge to the sentence as a lawyer-performance claim.

Disposition

The court denied Bazemore’s motion to vacate his sentence. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Bazemore had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court determined that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for the appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and mail Bazemore a copy of the order.

Classification Basis

This order is classified as mixed because the court reached the merits of Bazemore’s plea-voluntariness claim in the alternative, while disposing of his sentencing claims on the threshold ground that he had waived those challenges in the plea agreement.