Santiago-Ortiz v. United States

Background

Jose Santiago-Ortiz was convicted on May 16, 2018, of murder in aid of racketeering, murder during a narcotics conspiracy, conspiring to distribute and possess heroin with intent to distribute, murder through the use of a firearm during a narcotics conspiracy, and carrying and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The court sentenced him principally to life imprisonment on Counts 1 through 3, with consecutive life terms on Counts 4 and 5. His judgment was affirmed by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied review.

Santiago-Ortiz filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a conviction or sentence after judgment. The motion asserted nine grounds of ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel. The court explained that the motion contained only one-sentence assertions, with no affidavits, declarations, other evidence, legal argument, or supporting citations. It also failed to state the facts supporting each ground as required by the rules governing Section 2255 motions.

The court had granted repeated extensions for Santiago-Ortiz to file a promised supporting memorandum. The last extension set a deadline of August 5, 2022. Although a Bureau of Prisons memorandum indicated that library access had been restricted during the COVID-19 measures and that normal movement had resumed on June 30, 2022, Santiago-Ortiz filed no memorandum and requested no additional extension. The court therefore evaluated the motion based on the existing papers and record.

Legal standard

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Prejudice requires a reasonable probability that the proceeding would have ended differently without counsel’s alleged errors. The court emphasized that review of counsel’s conduct is highly deferential and begins with a strong presumption that counsel acted within the range of reasonable professional assistance.

The nine grounds

1. Double jeopardy: Santiago-Ortiz claimed counsel should have sought dismissal of Counts 3 and 5 on double-jeopardy grounds. The court found that he did not even assert that he had previously been placed in jeopardy on those charges, so the claim failed both parts of the ineffective-assistance test.

2. Failure to state offenses: He claimed counsel should have sought dismissal of Counts 4 and 5 because they failed to state offenses against the United States. He supplied no basis for that argument, and the court found that it failed both parts of the ineffective-assistance test.

3. Prosecutorial misconduct: He alleged that counsel failed to object to pervasive prosecutorial misconduct but provided no details. Judge Kaplan, who had presided over the trial, stated that there had been no prosecutorial misconduct. The court found the claim meritless under both parts of the test.

4. Investigation and trial preparation: He claimed counsel had failed adequately to investigate and prepare for trial. He did not identify what counsel failed to do or explain how any failure affected the result. The court rejected the claim.

5. Potential witnesses: He claimed counsel failed to call certain witnesses at his direction. He did not identify the witnesses, explain whether they could have been located, describe their expected testimony, or show why their testimony would likely have changed the outcome. The court rejected the claim.

6. Trial concession: He claimed counsel effectively conceded his guilt of murdering Jerry Tide despite his instructions not to do so. The court stated that counsel did not concede guilt of the charged crimes. Instead, counsel conceded that Santiago-Ortiz killed Jerry Tide, while disputing that the killing occurred in aid of racketeering, during a narcotics conspiracy, or through use of a firearm during and in relation to a narcotics conspiracy. The court described that approach as sound trial strategy, found no violation of Santiago-Ortiz’s right to effective counsel or decision-making autonomy, and concluded that the evidence of the killing was overwhelming.

7. Plea negotiations: He claimed counsel failed to conduct plea negotiations. The record showed that the government had made a plea offer, that Santiago-Ortiz had discussed it at length with his attorneys, understood it, and rejected it. The court found no support for the assumptions that counsel failed to make a counteroffer, that any failure was attributable to counsel, or that such a failure fell below constitutional standards. It also found no showing of prejudice.

8. Jury instructions: He claimed counsel failed to object to the jury charge. He did not identify any error in the charge or explain how an objection could have changed the outcome. The court rejected the claim as baseless.

9. Appellate counsel: He claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issues in Grounds I through VIII. Because the underlying claims lacked merit, the court found this claim baseless as well.

Disposition

On preliminary review, the court determined from the motion and the record that Santiago-Ortiz was not entitled to relief. It dismissed the Section 2255 motion. It also denied a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order on August 10, 2022.