Collado v. United States

Background

Ivan Collado pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit Hobbs Act robberies, a federal robbery conspiracy offense. The court sentenced him principally to 121 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. The applicable sentencing-guidelines range included a five-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), which applies when a firearm was brandished or possessed in connection with a robbery.

Before sentencing, Collado had objected to the firearm increase. His lawyer, Edward V. Sapone, later informed the court that Collado had decided not to contest the remaining guidelines issues and would rely on the calculation in the final presentence report. At sentencing, counsel submitted materials about Collado’s mental-health history and argued for a lower sentence based substantially on that history and condition. The court considered those materials and stated that Collado had significant and extraordinary intellectual and mental-health challenges, but imposed a 121-month sentence.

Claims and analysis

Collado sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which permits a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence imposed in violation of federal law or the Constitution. He raised three grounds.

Firearm-enhancement objection

Collado argued that counsel provided ineffective assistance by withdrawing the objection to the five-level firearm increase without his knowledge or consent. To establish ineffective assistance, he had to show both that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the alleged error caused prejudice—that is, a reasonable probability of a different result.

The court did not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient because it found that Collado had not shown prejudice. Collado offered no objective evidence or specific factual proffer showing that the objection or a sentencing hearing about the issue would have succeeded. The record showed that he admitted agreeing to robberies at gunpoint, the investigation indicated that firearms were used or brandished in all four robberies, and the factual record supported applying the enhancement. The court also rejected Collado’s suggestion that he would have gone to trial had he known about the enhancement because he offered no facts showing that rejecting the plea would have been a rational choice under the circumstances.

The court therefore denied the § 2255 claim based on counsel’s withdrawal of the firearm objection. It also denied Collado’s request for an evidentiary hearing on that claim because he had not presented a plausible basis for relief and the existing record resolved the relevant issues.

Challenge based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis

Collado argued that the firearm increase was illegal under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis. The court explained that Davis held unconstitutional a residual-clause definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). The increase applied to Collado, however, because a firearm was possessed or brandished in connection with a robbery; it did not depend on the residual clause invalidated in Davis.

The court denied the § 2255 claim based on Davis.

Mental-health mitigation

Collado argued that counsel failed to raise his mental disorder as a reason for a lower sentence. The court found that this assertion conflicted with the sentencing record. Counsel had submitted psychological evaluations and other supporting materials, argued about Collado’s mental-health history and condition, and the court had considered those matters at sentencing.

The court therefore denied the claim that counsel failed to present Collado’s mental-health condition.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Collado’s § 2255 motion in its entirety. The court also denied his request for an evidentiary hearing, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and directed the clerk to close the civil case. The order stated that Collado could not appeal unless a circuit justice or judge issued the required certificate.