Minier v. United States

Background

In 2017, Domingo Minier pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(B). The court sentenced him to 108 months in prison, below the stipulated Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months. The Second Circuit dismissed his direct appeal based on the appeal waiver in the plea agreement, while stating that Minier could pursue an ineffective-assistance claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Minier filed the § 2255 motion without a lawyer. He argued that defense counsel Lauriano Guzman failed to investigate the government’s decision to bring the illegal-reentry and drug charges separately, failed to file certain pretrial motions, failed to challenge the criminal-history calculation, and failed to assist him adequately at sentencing. Minier also asserted that the plea agreement was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because counsel did not translate it into Spanish.

Legal standard and procedural rulings

The court found the motion timely. It also held that Minier’s ineffective-assistance claims were not procedurally barred merely because he had not raised them on direct appeal. The court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing because the motion, case files, and records did not present a plausible ineffective-assistance claim.

To establish ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, Minier had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different without counsel’s errors.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Minier’s claim that counsel failed to investigate. During the guilty-plea hearing, Minier said he was satisfied with counsel and that the plea agreement had been explained to him. Counsel also stated that he had investigated the case. The court found no substantial reason to discredit those statements. It further noted that counsel had raised the charge-splitting issue in a written sentencing submission and at the sentencing hearing, and that the court considered the issue under the sentencing factors before imposing the below-Guidelines sentence.

The court also rejected the claim concerning pretrial motions. It characterized decisions about whether to seek grand-jury materials, witness statements under 18 U.S.C. § 3500, or an entrapment defense as strategic decisions. The court additionally found that the proposed motions likely would not have succeeded: Minier had not shown the required basis for disclosure of grand-jury transcripts, and the law generally barred pretrial disclosure of the government’s witness statements.

The court found that counsel did challenge the criminal-history calculation and the effect of bringing the illegal-reentry and drug charges separately. It also found that counsel advocated for a lower sentence by submitting mitigating information, letters from family and friends, and arguments concerning the delay in bringing the drug charge. The court therefore rejected Minier’s claim that counsel failed to assist him at sentencing.

Finally, the court held Minier to his statements during the plea hearing that he understood the agreement and that a Spanish translation was unnecessary because counsel had explained its terms. The court found no substantial basis to disregard those statements.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Crotty denied Minier’s § 2255 petition in full. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Minier had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the specified motions.