Vasquez v. United States

Background

Ismael Vasquez moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure allowing a person in federal custody to challenge a conviction or sentence, seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence and withdraw his guilty plea on the robbery count. He had pleaded guilty to one count arising from a Bronx home robbery and one count arising from a separate carjacking. The court later sentenced him to 151 months in prison.

Arguments

Vasquez argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the robbery count because the Hobbs Act did not cover what he described as the robbery of a private individual and the individual’s home. He also argued that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him about the alleged jurisdictional defect, challenge the robbery count, or raise the issue on direct appeal.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Hobbs Act’s interstate-commerce requirement was satisfied. The victim worked as a livery cab driver whose work primarily involved transporting clients between New York and New Jersey. The court also relied on the government’s plea presentation, which Vasquez had not disputed, that the victim effectively operated the livery cab business from the robbed home. The $17,000 taken from the victim’s safe came from that cab business. These facts showed at least a slight, subtle, or potential effect on interstate commerce, which was enough under the standard applied by the court. The court further stated that Vasquez did not need to know that the victim participated in interstate commerce or that the money represented business assets.

The court rejected the ineffective-assistance claims. Under the constitutional standard for ineffective assistance, Vasquez had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the failure caused prejudice. Because the court found that federal jurisdiction existed, it concluded that counsel reasonably could advise Vasquez accordingly and reasonably could decline to challenge jurisdiction before the court or on appeal.

Disposition

The court denied Vasquez’s motion in full. It stated that he had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the Clerk to dismiss the petition and close case number 17-cv-3707, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Vasquez.

Effect

The ruling left Vasquez’s challenged conviction and sentence in place and ended the related civil proceeding. The opinion states the date only as November 2019; the metadata supplied with the opinion gives November 21, 2019, which is used in the header.