Gonzalez v. United States

Background

Ronnie Gonzalez was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and using a firearm to cause a person’s death during and in relation to crimes of violence. The firearm conviction was charged in Count Three under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j) and 2, and the robbery offenses were the alleged underlying crimes of violence. The court originally sentenced Gonzalez to concurrent terms of 20 years on Counts One and Two and 30 years on Count Three. The Second Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied review.

Gonzalez later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He also sought to challenge Count Three based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States. The court stayed that part of the proceeding while the Supreme Court and Second Circuit considered related issues.

Count Three

After the stay, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Davis that a crime qualifies as a categorical crime of violence under the relevant firearm statute only if its elements include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The Supreme Court later held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify, and the Second Circuit held that Hobbs Act conspiracy does not qualify. Because those were the two predicate offenses underlying Count Three, the parties agreed that Gonzalez’s Count Three conviction and sentence should be vacated.

The court granted Gonzalez’s motion as to Count Three and vacated that conviction and sentence. On February 15, 2023, it resentenced him to an aggregate term of 26 years on Counts One and Two, with credit for time served since July 14, 2018. The court also denied as moot Gonzalez’s ineffective-assistance claim concerning counsel’s handling of the jury instruction for Count Three.

Ineffective-Assistance Claims for Counts One and Two

Gonzalez argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony from Joshua Colon and for failing to request a bill of particulars, which is a document providing additional details about the charges. To establish ineffective assistance, Gonzalez had to show both that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the alleged errors probably affected the result.

The court found that counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable. Counsel had vigorously questioned Colon about the factual basis of his testimony and his credibility as a cooperating witness. The court also found that the indictment adequately informed Gonzalez of the charges, so counsel’s decision not to request a bill of particulars was reasonable. In addition, the court held that the evidence supporting Gonzalez’s participation in planning and carrying out the robbery was overwhelming and that there was no reasonable probability of a different trial result.

The court therefore DENIED Gonzalez’s motion to vacate his convictions and sentence on Counts One and Two based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition and Appealability

The court ordered that Gonzalez’s section 2255 motion was GRANTED with respect to Count Three and DENIED in all other respects. It separately ordered that the conviction and sentence under Count Three were VACATED.

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Gonzalez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and ruled that Gonzalez could not proceed without paying the filing fee. The order was signed by Richard J. Sullivan, United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation.