Irizarry v. United States of America

Background

Jorge Irizarry, proceeding without a lawyer on this motion, sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which permits a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence imposed in violation of federal law or the Constitution. The motion challenged Irizarry’s conviction and sentence based primarily on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Irizarry had been charged in connection with the Wild Card Crips and a retaliatory shooting that killed Jonathan Martinez. He pleaded guilty to using and carrying a firearm, including its discharge, in furtherance of a crime of violence, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). During the plea hearing, he confirmed that he understood the charge, was satisfied with counsel, and was pleading guilty voluntarily. The court later imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and three years of supervised release.

Claims and analysis

Irizarry argued that counsel allowed him to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit and verbally coerced him. The court relied on his sworn statements during the plea hearing, his statements at sentencing, and affidavits from his former attorneys. The court concluded that these materials contradicted his allegations and showed that the plea was knowing and voluntary. It also found no prejudice because Irizarry offered no evidence beyond his own assertion that he would have gone to trial.

Irizarry also argued that counsel failed to investigate or cross-examine witnesses. The court found that he did not identify a witness who would have offered exculpatory testimony or explain what that testimony would have been. The court further relied on counsel’s statement that she had reviewed police reports, videos, and the medical examiner’s report and had consulted with a defense investigator. It concluded that the claim was speculative. The court also explained that Irizarry did not need to fire the weapon himself to be responsible under the firearm statute because he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the firearm’s use.

The court rejected Irizarry’s other ineffective-assistance arguments. It held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States did not apply because Irizarry was convicted under a different statute. It found that a sentencing-disparity argument was unavailable because Irizarry received the statutory minimum. It found no evidence that arguments under the Speedy Trial Act or a request for severance would have changed the outcome. It also found that there were no guideline enhancements to challenge and that additional mental-health evaluation would not have affected a sentence that was already the statutory and guideline minimum.

Finally, Irizarry claimed that counsel failed to file an appeal after he requested one. The court found that all three former attorneys stated that he had never asked them to appeal and that no third party had contacted them about an appeal. It determined that the written record did not warrant a further hearing. The court also noted that Irizarry had signed an appeal and collateral-attack waiver covering a sentence at or below 10 years, and that the court imposed exactly 10 years. It found no identified appealable issue that would avoid the waiver and no showing of prejudice.

Ruling

Judge Loretta A. Preska denied Irizarry’s § 2255 motion. The court concluded that he had not shown either unreasonable attorney performance or prejudice, and that no additional evidentiary proceedings were warranted. The Clerk was directed to close the motion’s docket entry and mail Irizarry a copy of the order.