Agramonte v. United States

Background

Juan Agramonte pleaded guilty in January 2016 to conspiring to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute at least 100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). The court sentenced him to 78 months’ imprisonment, below the applicable Guidelines range of 87 to 108 months and within the 78-to-97-month range stipulated in his plea agreement.

The plea agreement stated that Agramonte was not a United States citizen, had discussed possible immigration consequences with counsel, understood that deportation was very likely, and wanted to plead guilty despite those consequences. It also waived his rights to appeal and to bring a collateral challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241 for a sentence within or below the stipulated range. During the guilty-plea hearing, Agramonte confirmed that he understood these provisions.

Claims

Agramonte filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to seek correction of a sentence on specified legal or constitutional grounds. He raised two ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims: that counsel misled him about the deportation consequences of pleading guilty, and that counsel failed to consult him about appealing his sentence.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the ineffective-assistance standard from Strickland v. Washington. Under that standard, a petitioner must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency caused prejudice.

On the immigration claim, the court held that the claim was waived by the plea agreement. It also held that the claim failed on the merits because the written agreement and Agramonte’s sworn statements during the plea hearing showed that counsel had discussed immigration consequences with him. The court rejected Agramonte’s contrary, unsupported assertion that counsel had assured him he would not be deported. The court further held that he had not shown prejudice because he had not established that, with different advice, he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial. The court also noted the benefits of the plea, including a lower mandatory minimum and a possible reduction for accepting responsibility.

On the appeal-related claim, the court held that the claim was waived because Agramonte’s sentence was below the stipulated Guidelines range. The court also held that the claim failed on the merits because Agramonte did not allege that he specifically instructed counsel to file an appeal; he alleged only that he would have instructed counsel if asked. He also did not identify a basis for concluding that an appeal would have succeeded.

Disposition

The court stated that the petition was denied and, in the conclusion, dismissed the petition. It declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Agramonte had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the United States and close the case.