Kloszewski v. United States

Background

Gustav Kloszewski was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to traffic in firearms, firearms trafficking, Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, and conspiracy to distribute and possess controlled substances. The court sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.

Kloszewski filed a motion under Section 2255, a federal procedure that allows a person in federal custody to challenge a conviction or sentence. He claimed that his trial lawyer, Patrick Joyce, provided ineffective assistance in two ways: by advising him to reject a plea offer and by failing to locate and interview several potential witnesses.

Plea-advice claim

Kloszewski asserted that Joyce told him certain audio recordings would be excluded and that the case would be dismissed. He also claimed Joyce failed to warn him about the sentencing consequences of his career-offender status.

The court considered Joyce’s sworn declaration, which denied Kloszewski’s allegations and provided supporting details. The court also relied on the record of the prior proceedings. That record showed that Kloszewski’s career-offender status had been discussed in his presence, and that the court had warned him that a conviction could result in spending the rest of his useful life in prison. The record also showed that the Government stated Kloszewski rejected a plea offer as late as May 21, 2017, after the court denied a motion to dismiss.

The court found that Kloszewski continued to reject plea offers after receiving warnings about the risks and consequences. It therefore concluded that he could not show either that Joyce’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that he was harmed by Joyce’s conduct.

Witness-investigation claim

Kloszewski claimed Joyce failed to locate and interview Sian Stafford, Blake Hann, “Carlos,” and “Justin.” Joyce stated that he tried to locate the individuals, including by hiring a private investigator and contacting a person named “Ralph.” Joyce also stated that he did not expect the potential witnesses to provide exculpatory information.

Kloszewski submitted an affidavit from Ralph Abravaya, who stated that Joyce and his associates had never contacted him. The court said that, even if Abravaya’s statement were true, it did not help Kloszewski because Abravaya said he did not know Stafford, Carlos, or Justin and therefore could not have led Joyce to those people. The court also noted that Kloszewski did not explain how Joyce could have located them or what testimony they would have provided. The court further stated that Stafford and Hann were cooperating witnesses who had helped authorities gather evidence leading to Kloszewski’s arrest.

Legal standard and ruling

To succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim, a petitioner must show both that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different without counsel’s errors. To obtain a hearing on a Section 2255 motion based on ineffective assistance, the petitioner must present a plausible claim.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein held that neither of Kloszewski’s asserted grounds met that standard. The court denied Kloszewski’s motion to vacate his conviction. It also directed the Clerk to close the motion on the criminal docket, Case No. 16 Cr. 200, and to close the civil case, Case No. 20 Civ. 3998.