Peralta v. United States

Background

Orlando Peralta proceeded without a lawyer and asked the court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. He had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The court sentenced him to 33 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. When he filed the petition, he had been released from prison but remained on supervised release, so the court found that the petition was not moot.

Peralta raised four general challenges: ineffective assistance of counsel; an allegedly unknowing guilty plea in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; an argument that the Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional; and unspecified equal-protection violations. The government opposed the petition, and Peralta did not file a reply.

Ineffective assistance of counsel

To prove ineffective assistance, Peralta had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the deficiency likely affected the outcome. The court rejected his argument that counsel should have argued that Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence. Peralta had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, and the court noted that he was not sentenced as a career offender. Therefore, whether the conspiracy qualified as a crime of violence did not affect his sentence. The court concluded that Peralta could not show either deficient performance or prejudice.

The court also rejected Peralta’s separate assertion that counsel should have objected to the jury charge. The case never went to trial, so there was no jury charge to challenge.

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 this claim. During the hearing, the government explained that knowingly joining the conspiracy was an element of the offense. 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 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 to the Guidelines as raising Sixth and Eighth Amendment arguments. It rejected both. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, the Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. The court calculated the recommended range but also considered the other sentencing factors required by federal law. The court therefore found no Sixth Amendment violation.

The court also found no Eighth Amendment violation. It concluded that the Guidelines were properly calculated, that a 33-month sentence for Peralta’s offense was not an unconstitutional punishment, and that the sentence was at the bottom of the applicable 33-to-41-month range. The court also considered Peralta’s relative culpability compared with his co-defendants.

Equal-protection claim

Peralta asserted that the government’s decision to prosecute him violated equal-protection principles. The court noted that he had waived indictment and pleaded guilty to an information, so he had not been indicted. It also treated his reference to a First Amendment equal-protection right as an apparent reference to the Fifth Amendment. The court found that Peralta offered no evidence or data showing discriminatory intent in his case and rejected the 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. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the civil case. The order amended an earlier opinion and order.