Peralta v. United States

Background

Orlando Peralta, representing himself, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. He had pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The court sentenced him to 33 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He was released from prison on June 15, 2021, but remained on supervised release, so the court found that his motion was not moot.

Peralta sought to vacate his plea, conviction, and sentence on four grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel; an allegedly unknowing guilty plea violating the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; an unconstitutional sentencing-guidelines statute; and unspecified equal-protection violations. The Government opposed the motion, and Peralta did not file a reply.

Court’s Analysis

Ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective assistance, Peralta had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the alleged deficiency probably affected the result. He argued that counsel should have claimed that Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence and that the court therefore used an incorrect guideline range. The court rejected the argument because Peralta pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, not robbery, and because he was not sentenced as a career offender. Whether the conspiracy qualified as a crime of violence therefore did not affect his sentence. The court also rejected his separate complaint about counsel’s failure to object to a jury charge because the case never went to trial and there was no jury charge.

Guilty plea. Peralta argued that he did not understand that the Government would have to prove he acted knowingly. The court found that the plea hearing record contradicted that claim. The Government explained that knowingly joining the conspiracy was an element of the offense, and the court explained that the Government would have to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt if the case went to trial. Peralta confirmed that he understood the charge, its elements, and the consequences of his plea, and confirmed that he was pleading guilty voluntarily. The court therefore found that his plea was knowing.

Sentencing Guidelines. The court interpreted Peralta’s unclear constitutional challenge as asserting violations of the Sixth and Eighth Amendments. It explained that, after United States v. Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. The court calculated the guideline range but also considered the statutory sentencing factors, including the circumstances of the offense and Peralta’s relative culpability compared with his co-defendants. The court concluded that the Guidelines did not violate the Sixth Amendment. It also held that the 33-month sentence, imposed at the bottom of the properly calculated guideline range, did not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Equal protection. Peralta claimed that his charging document violated equal protection because of how prosecutors selected people for prosecution. The court noted that he waived indictment and pleaded guilty to an information, so he was never indicted. It also found that he offered no evidence or data showing discriminatory intent in his case. The court therefore rejected this claim.

Disposition

The court denied Peralta’s § 2255 petition. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Peralta had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the civil case.