Lajara Guiterrez v. United States

Background

Hector Luis Lajara Guiterrez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence or conviction on specified legal grounds. He asked the court to vacate his guilty plea because, he alleged, his lawyer provided ineffective assistance.

The criminal case arose from a planned robbery of a drug dealer. On May 24, 2017, law enforcement arrested Lajara Guiterrez and others as they approached a location where they believed drugs would arrive.

On January 23, 2018, Lajara Guiterrez pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to conspiracy to commit robbery, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). During the plea hearing, he confirmed under oath that he was satisfied with his lawyer, had discussed the case and consequences of pleading guilty with counsel, and understood that no one could assure him what sentence he would receive. He also confirmed that he understood the stipulated sentencing-guidelines range was 108 to 135 months and that he could not withdraw the plea simply because the sentence differed from what he expected.

At sentencing, the court calculated the guidelines range as 108 to 135 months but sentenced Lajara Guiterrez to 50 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He did not file a direct appeal. Although he was released from prison in or around December 2020, the opinion states that his supervised-release obligations kept the petition from becoming moot.

Claims

Lajara Guiterrez raised four related ineffective-assistance claims. He alleged that his lawyer forced him to plead guilty to both charges, tricked him into believing his offense level was 21 instead of 31, promised that he would serve no more than 33 months, and later told him that withdrawing the plea before sentencing was not possible. He asked to have the plea vacated so that he could plead again.

To establish ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment, a petitioner must show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and that the deficient performance probably affected the result.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Lajara Guiterrez could not show deficient performance. His claims that he was forced to plead guilty, misled about the offense level, or promised a sentence of no more than 33 months were contradicted by his sworn statements during the plea hearing. At that hearing, he said he was satisfied with counsel, had discussed the case and plea consequences with counsel, understood that no one could guarantee his sentence, and had not been threatened, forced, or offered inducements to plead guilty.

The court also found that his claim that he first learned of the 108-to-135-month guidelines range from the presentence report was contradicted by his plea-hearing testimony. He had confirmed that he understood the plea agreement, including the offense level of 31 and the stipulated guidelines range.

Finally, the court stated that even assuming counsel told Lajara Guiterrez he could not withdraw the plea before sentencing, that advice would fall within the broad range of professionally reasonable assistance. The court explained that facing a longer prison sentence than expected is not a valid ground for withdrawing a guilty plea. The court therefore concluded that the petition did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the petition. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Lajara Guiterrez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the United States and close the related criminal and civil cases.