Cannonier v. United States

Background

Quaysean Cannonier was charged with participating in a racketeering conspiracy and using a firearm in furtherance of that conspiracy. He pleaded guilty to the racketeering-conspiracy count, and the Government agreed to dismiss the firearm count. The plea agreement set a Sentencing Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months and stated that Cannonier waived his rights to appeal or collaterally challenge any sentence within or below that range. The agreement preserved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel concerning the negotiation and entry of the plea or sentencing agreement.

The court sentenced Cannonier to 60 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Proceeding without a lawyer, Cannonier filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He alleged that his attorney failed to argue that a 2011 robbery conviction should not count toward his criminal history, failed to seek a reduced sentence based on attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and failed to seek a mental-competency examination.

Waiver of Collateral-Attack Rights

The court first held that the plea agreement’s waiver barred Cannonier’s claims. During his guilty-plea hearing, Cannonier confirmed that he understood he was giving up the right to challenge a sentence of no more than 78 months. The court had accepted the plea as knowing and voluntary, and Cannonier did not claim in his petition that he misunderstood the waiver or entered the agreement involuntarily.

The court concluded that all three ineffective-assistance claims targeted the sentence imposed, rather than the negotiation or entry of the plea agreement. It therefore ruled that the claims could not avoid the waiver merely because they were framed as Sixth Amendment claims. The court also held that Cannonier’s challenges to the criminal-history calculation and the absence of a downward departure were directly covered by the waiver.

Alternative Merits Analysis

The court ruled that the petition would fail even without the waiver. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Cannonier had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below objectively reasonable professional standards and that the alleged error probably changed the result.

First, the court found that counsel had made the criminal-history argument Cannonier claimed was missing. Counsel objected to the presentence report, made written sentencing arguments, and raised the issue at sentencing. The court nevertheless rejected the argument because it conflicted with binding Second Circuit precedent.

Second, the court found no ineffective assistance concerning attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The plea agreement barred counsel from seeking a downward departure for diminished capacity. The court also stated that Cannonier had not shown that his condition met the applicable standard or that seeking the departure would probably have produced a different sentence.

Third, the court rejected the claim concerning a mental-competency examination under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Counsel had researched the issue and reasonably concluded that the statute concerned competency to proceed in the criminal case, not obtaining mental-health information for sentencing mitigation. Cannonier also failed to show that requesting an examination probably would have changed the result.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Cannonier’s § 2255 motion in its entirety. The court determined that no hearing was necessary because the motion and case records conclusively showed that he was not entitled to relief. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to close the civil docket and terminate the related criminal-docket motion.