Jaramillo v. United States

Background

Pedro Jaramillo, representing himself, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He had pleaded guilty to commodities fraud and wire fraud. The court sentenced him principally to 144 months of imprisonment and three years of post-release supervision.

Jaramillo sought to vacate his guilty pleas and sentence. His main argument was that his attorney, Roberto Luis Pagan-Lopez, told him the sentencing range in the plea agreement—78 to 97 months—would limit the sentence and that the judge would not impose a sentence above that range. Jaramillo also briefly argued that his attorney threatened to stop representing him if he did not plead guilty and that he could not afford another lawyer.

Court’s analysis

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Jaramillo had to show both that his attorney’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the alleged error prejudiced him. For a claim involving incorrect advice about a possible sentence, prejudice requires a reasonable probability that accurate advice would have caused the defendant to reject the plea and go to trial.

The court held that Jaramillo could not show prejudice. During the plea hearing, he stated under oath that he understood the court could sentence him anywhere from time served up to the combined statutory maximum of 30 years. He also signed a plea agreement stating that the maximum sentence was 30 years and that the court could sentence him outside the Guidelines range. In addition, he acknowledged that any sentencing prediction by his attorney or the government could be wrong and should not be relied upon. Because Jaramillo knew the actual sentencing possibilities when he pleaded guilty, the court concluded that he could not show that the alleged advice caused him to plead guilty instead of going to trial.

The court did not decide whether counsel actually made the alleged inaccurate prediction or whether such a prediction would have been unreasonable. It concluded that Jaramillo’s failure to show prejudice was enough to resolve that claim.

The court also rejected Jaramillo’s claim that counsel threatened to withdraw. Jaramillo offered no supporting evidence, and the plea record contradicted the claim: he stated that no one had threatened or coerced him and that he was satisfied with his counsel. The court also had informed him that he would have a right to appointed counsel if he proceeded to trial and could not afford a lawyer.

Disposition

The court denied Jaramillo’s § 2255 motion in its entirety. It also denied his request for an evidentiary hearing because the motion and existing record did not show a plausible ineffective-assistance claim. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed entry of judgment, and closed the case.