Polanco Velez v. United States

Background

Jose Antonio Polanco Velez petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, claiming that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance in connection with his guilty plea and sentencing. He was charged with conspiring to distribute oxycodone, pleaded guilty under a plea agreement, and was sentenced to 24 months in prison. The plea agreement stipulated to a Sentencing Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months and waived challenges to a sentence of 30 months or less.

Claims and analysis

Polanco Velez argued that counsel failed to investigate the quantity and source of the oxycodone. The court found that he did not identify an investigation that would have changed the drug-quantity calculation or established a different source. The court also concluded that he had not shown that further investigation would have caused him to reject the plea agreement and go to trial, as required to show prejudice in the plea context.

He also claimed that counsel failed to explain the plea agreement and sentencing exposure and promised a sentence of time served or no more than 12 months. The court rejected those claims because they conflicted with his sworn statements during the plea hearing that the agreement had been translated and explained, that he understood its terms, and that he understood the possible penalties and Guidelines range.

The court rejected Polanco Velez’s claim that counsel failed to advise him about deportation. During the plea hearing, he confirmed that he understood a conviction would make it easier for the Government to deport him and that he had discussed deportation with his lawyer.

The court also found that counsel had presented mitigating information at sentencing, including Polanco Velez’s remorse, employment history, health issues, and need to care for his mother. Counsel submitted medical records and raised several of those matters orally. The court’s decision not to impose a sentence below the Guidelines range did not show that counsel’s performance was constitutionally inadequate.

Finally, the court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). That relief requires the defendant to truthfully provide the Government all information and evidence concerning the relevant offense. The parties agreed at sentencing that Polanco Velez had not provided information about the pharmacy that supplied the narcotics, so the court found him ineligible for the relief.

Ruling

The court denied Polanco Velez’s § 2255 petition. It concluded that he had not shown either objectively unreasonable attorney performance or prejudice under the standard for ineffective-assistance claims. The court also denied a certificate of appealability because he had not made a substantial showing that a federal right was denied, stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.