Michel v. United States
- John Keenan
- 1:19-cv-05919-JFK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 23
In Michel v. United States, Judge Keenan denied Michel’s sentence challenge, finding his plea waiver valid and his claims barred or meritless.
Angelo Michel’s conviction and 240-month sentence remain in place. The United States prevailed on Michel’s challenge, and the related civil case was closed.
What happened
Michel v. United States involved Angelo Michel’s request to undo or correct his federal sentence under a law allowing prisoners to challenge unconstitutional sentences. Michel had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit kidnapping and received a 240-month prison sentence. He represented himself in bringing this request.
Michel argued that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary because his trial lawyer gave ineffective assistance, that his appeals lawyer was ineffective, that he was actually innocent, and that the government used false testimony before the grand jury. The United States opposed the request, arguing that Michel had waived this type of challenge in his plea agreement and that his claims also failed based on the record.
Judge John F. Keenan denied Michel’s motion. The court found that Michel knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence, and that his ineffective-assistance claims concerning the plea failed. The court also found that his other claims were barred or lacked merit, declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, and closed the related civil case.
The detailed version
- Michel v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-05919-JFK
- John Keenan
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
Angelo Michel moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence imposed in violation of federal law or the Constitution. The motion concerned his criminal case, No. 11 Cr. 755 (JFK). Michel had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The court later sentenced him to 240 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release.
During the plea hearing, Michel confirmed that he understood the plea agreement, including its provision waiving his right to appeal or otherwise challenge his conviction and sentence if the sentence was 365 months or less. He also confirmed that he was satisfied with his trial lawyer’s advice and representation. The Second Circuit later dismissed his appeal after granting appellate counsel’s request to withdraw based on a determination that there were no non-frivolous issues to raise.
Claims and arguments
Michel raised four main grounds for relief:
- He argued that trial counsel was ineffective during plea negotiations because counsel advised him to plead guilty despite his claimed innocence, failed to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence, threatened him with a life sentence, and misrepresented his possible sentence.
- He argued that appellate counsel was ineffective for filing a brief stating that there were no non-frivolous appellate issues instead of raising Michel’s proposed arguments.
- He claimed that he was actually and factually innocent of the kidnapping.
- He argued that the indictment was obtained partly through false grand-jury testimony by New York City Police Department Detective Donald DeRienzo.
The United States argued that Michel’s plea-agreement waiver barred his § 2255 motion and that his claims also failed on the merits.
Court’s analysis
The court first considered whether Michel’s waiver was valid and enforceable. It held that the waiver did not bar a claim that ineffective assistance had undermined the waiver itself, but it found that Michel’s allegations did not establish ineffective assistance. The court relied on Michel’s sworn plea statements that he knowingly and voluntarily participated in the kidnapping and understood the plea agreement. It also considered trial counsel’s affidavit, which stated that counsel had discussed the government’s evidence, Michel’s potential sentencing exposure, and the alleged lost-cell-phone defense with him.
The court concluded that Michel had not shown that trial counsel’s performance fell below a reasonable professional standard or that he would have rejected the guilty plea and gone to trial absent counsel’s alleged errors. Because Michel’s plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary, the court held that the collateral-attack waiver was valid and that the claims covered by it were procedurally barred.
The court separately addressed the claims on the merits. It rejected Michel’s argument that trial counsel should have challenged the sentencing enhancement based on a ransom demand made from Michel’s cell phone, finding that the proposed cell-phone defense conflicted with Michel’s sworn admission that he went to the kidnapping location and allowed his phone to be used. The court also rejected the claim concerning appellate counsel, reasoning that the appeals court had granted counsel’s request to withdraw after counsel determined that there were no non-frivolous issues.
The court rejected Michel’s actual-innocence claim because he offered no supporting evidence and his claim conflicted with his sworn plea statements. It also ruled that the alleged false grand-jury testimony could not support relief after Michel knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and admitted the facts underlying the kidnapping charge. The court said that any non-jurisdictional defect in the grand-jury process was therefore harmless for purposes of this motion.
Disposition
Judge John F. Keenan denied Michel’s § 2255 motion. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Michel had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the clerk to terminate the motion in the criminal case, and closed the related civil case.
Read the full 23-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.