Alvarez v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-00177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alvarez v. United States, Judge Briccetti denied Nicholas Alvarez’s request to reopen his rejected challenge to his conviction.
Nicholas Alvarez, whose request to reopen the denial of his Section 2255 petition was denied and whose request to appeal without paying filing fees was also denied.
What happened
In Alvarez v. United States, Nicholas Alvarez, acting without a lawyer, asked the court to reopen its earlier decision denying his challenge under a federal law allowing prisoners to contest their convictions and sentences. He argued that the court had not addressed whether his trial lawyer advised him about accepting a plea offer.
The court said its earlier decision had addressed the claim and found that Alvarez’s lawyer was not constitutionally ineffective. The court also noted that Alvarez’s current argument conflicted with arguments he had made earlier, and that no supplemental motion appeared on the court’s docket.
Judge Briccetti denied Alvarez’s request because it was filed more than a year after the earlier decision and did not provide a reason to revisit it. The court also denied Alvarez permission to appeal without paying filing fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Alvarez v. United States · No. 7:18-cv-00177
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
Nicholas Alvarez, proceeding without a lawyer, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate the court’s January 2019 decision denying his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 allows a federal prisoner to seek relief from a conviction or sentence on specified grounds. Alvarez argued that a supplemental filing had claimed his trial lawyer failed to advise him whether to accept a plea offer, and that the court had not expressly decided that claim.
Court’s analysis
The court said it was not aware of any supplemental motion and that the electronic docket did not show one had been filed. The court also found that Alvarez’s current argument contradicted his earlier arguments that his lawyer had advised him about the plea offer and had specifically told him not to accept it.
The court explained that its earlier decision had concluded that trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective. That decision accepted as true counsel’s sworn statement that he discussed the plea offer with Alvarez and that Alvarez rejected it immediately. The court had also found that Alvarez failed to establish prejudice, meaning a showing that the alleged attorney error affected the result.
Timeliness and ruling
The court further held that the motion was untimely. Rule 60(c) requires a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to be filed within a reasonable time. The court’s earlier decision was entered on January 15, 2019, but Alvarez did not submit the current letter-motion until January 16, 2020. The court noted that Alvarez acknowledged having the relevant information before the earlier decision and waited until after the Court of Appeals denied his request for a certificate allowing an appeal and dismissed his appeal.
Judge Briccetti denied Alvarez’s Rule 60(b) motion. The court stated that Alvarez was not denied effective assistance of counsel, that his Section 2255 petition had been properly denied, and that the Rule 60(b) motion was untimely and lacked merit. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.