Collado v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:17-cv-10087
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Collado v. United States, Judge Swain ordered briefing on whether alleged ineffective assistance caused prejudice.
Ivan Collado and the United States were required to file additional letters addressing prejudice and possible remote hearing arrangements; the pending motion was not decided.
What happened
In Collado v. United States, Ivan Collado is challenging his conviction and sentence through a motion asking the court to set them aside. He argues that his earlier lawyer was ineffective in handling his plea agreement and his withdrawal of an objection to a five-level firearm sentencing increase.
Collado argued that the alleged error was a special kind of constitutional error that automatically established a violation, without requiring proof of harm. The government also had not addressed whether Collado was harmed by the alleged ineffective assistance.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not decide the motion. She ordered Collado and the government to submit letters by April 9, 2021, addressing prejudice and whether any hearing should be held remotely, including available video facilities.
The detailed version
- Collado v. United States · No. 1:17-cv-10087
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 25, 2021
Background
The court received Ivan Collado’s counseled supplemental submissions supporting his pending motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence. The opinion also identifies a related criminal docket, No. 14-CR-00731-LTS.
Collado alleges that his prior counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with his plea agreement and Collado’s withdrawal of an objection to a five-level sentencing enhancement for possession or use of a firearm. Collado argued that the alleged conduct was a “structural error” under McCoy v. Louisiana and therefore constituted a per se violation without requiring application of the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington.
Court’s analysis
The court noted that Collado did not expressly address whether the alleged ineffective assistance caused prejudice, which is the second part of the Strickland test. The government likewise had not addressed prejudice. The court explained that, when alleged structural errors are raised in a collateral ineffective-assistance claim rather than on direct review, courts generally require the petitioner to establish both parts of the Strickland test.
Order
The court concluded that additional briefing was warranted. It ordered Collado and the government each to file a letter by April 9, 2021, addressing prejudice resulting from the alleged ineffective assistance. The letters also had to address whether either party objected to a hearing by remote means, if the court later determined that a hearing was necessary, and what video facilities might be available for Collado’s remote testimony. The opinion does not decide Collado’s § 2255 motion or determine whether he was prejudiced.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.