Lauria v. United States

Background

Anthony Lauria filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a person in federal custody to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. Lauria had been charged with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, substantive Hobbs Act robbery, and using or brandishing a firearm during the robberies. He pleaded guilty to the robbery and conspiracy charges on June 4, 2021, and later pleaded guilty to the firearm charges on December 7, 2021.

Lauria maintained that the weapons used in the robberies were pellet guns rather than actual firearms. He argued that his lawyer, Sam Braverman, was ineffective for failing to research relevant Second Circuit law, giving incompetent advice during plea negotiations, pressuring him to plead guilty, and failing to file or properly advise him about an appeal.

After Lauria’s co-defendant was convicted at trial, the Second Circuit later vacated that co-defendant’s convictions in a decision issued on June 9, 2023. One reason was that the trial court had instructed the jury that a gun is a firearm, even though the Second Circuit had previously explained that not all guns qualify as firearms. Lauria argued that this later decision gave him a newly discovered fact that made his § 2255 petition timely.

Timeliness

The court held that Lauria’s petition was not timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4). That provision generally allows a petition within one year after the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through reasonable diligence.

The court rejected Lauria’s argument that the Second Circuit’s later decision was a newly discovered fact. It explained that the decision was a development in legal interpretation, not a new factual circumstance. The court relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that a change or development in case law does not create a new fact under § 2255(f)(4). It also found that Lauria and his co-defendants had already discussed the possibility that the weapon was a pellet gun and had considered using that theory at trial. Therefore, Lauria could not claim that he first learned this factual or legal theory from the later appellate decision.

Actual Innocence

Lauria also argued that proof of actual innocence should extend the filing deadline. The court described this as a demanding standard requiring new, reliable, and compelling evidence showing that it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that Lauria’s proposed evidence did not satisfy that standard. His statements that he newly understood the jury instructions, his innocence, and his lawyer’s alleged ineffectiveness were not new exculpatory evidence. Affidavits from family members concerning his access to a pellet gun and notes from a witness who was uncertain whether the gun was real were also information that could have been presented at trial. In addition, the court found that the affidavits did not show that a pellet gun was used in the robberies, and that the witness’s uncertainty merely weakened the Government’s case rather than compelling a finding of innocence.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Because the petition was untimely and Lauria did not establish actual innocence sufficient to extend the deadline, the court stated that it did not need to reach the ineffective-assistance claims. The court nevertheless briefly addressed them.

The court said Braverman’s advice reflected concerns about the difficulty of proving that a pellet gun was used in both robberies, the possibility that Lauria would have to testify and face cross-examination, and the risks of receiving a worse result after trial. The court stated that, after being advised of his options, Lauria made an informed choice to plead guilty. It also stated that Lauria’s decision whether to appeal was his own and that the court had informed him that he could file a notice of appeal within 14 days after judgment. The court concluded that none of the alleged deficiencies met the standard of objectively unreasonable assistance.

Disposition

The court denied Lauria’s § 2255 petition. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 285 and terminate the action.