Colon v. United States

Background

Tomas Colon, representing himself, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 151-month sentence. He had pleaded guilty under a plea agreement. The Government opposed the motion. The court evaluated Colon’s ineffective-assistance claims under the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington: he had to show both that his lawyer’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency caused prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability that the result would have been different.

Because Colon pleaded guilty, the court explained that he had to show a reasonable probability that, without his lawyer’s alleged errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and instead would have gone to trial.

Claims and Analysis

Colon argued that his lawyer was ineffective because the lawyer allegedly told him that the maximum sentence was 60 months even though Colon could receive 151 months; failed to challenge a sentencing enhancement for being a manager or supervisor; failed to challenge the use of a 2005 conviction in calculating his criminal-history score; and failed to challenge the drug quantities attributed to him.

The court rejected the claim about the maximum sentence. Before Colon pleaded guilty, the court told him that the maximum possible penalty was 40 years in prison, and Colon confirmed that he understood. The court therefore found that Colon could not show that he would have rejected the guilty plea and gone to trial based on the alleged advice from his lawyer.

The court also found no deficient performance concerning the manager-or-supervisor enhancement. Colon had read and discussed the plea agreement with his lawyer and had stipulated in that agreement that he was a manager or supervisor of the charged criminal activity. Because he had expressly agreed to that fact, the court said his lawyer had no legal basis to contest the enhancement.

The court reached the same conclusion concerning the 2005 conviction. Colon had stipulated to the conviction in the plea agreement. The court further stated that, even without that stipulation, including the conviction did not affect Colon’s criminal-history category, so he could not show prejudice.

Finally, the court found that Colon’s argument about drug quantities confused two issues: the drug-weight threshold that triggers statutory minimum and maximum penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), and the drug quantities for which he was held responsible at sentencing. Colon had stipulated that the offense involved at least 15 kilograms of heroin and at least 70 kilograms of cocaine. The court concluded that his lawyer had no basis to challenge those quantities, particularly in light of the plea agreement and the evidence discussed at sentencing.

Ruling

The court denied Colon’s motion to vacate his sentence. It concluded that he had not shown deficient performance or prejudice. The court also stated that the plea agreement reduced the sentence Colon would have faced if he had been convicted at trial. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 440 and close the related civil action, Colon v. United States, 24-CV-9226.