Santiago-Ortiz v. United States

Background

Jose Santiago-Ortiz was convicted on five counts arising from a murder committed in connection with a narcotics conspiracy. He filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. On May 31, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part his request to amend that motion. It allowed amendments concerning Grounds II, IV, V, VIII, and part of Ground IX, while denying permission to amend Grounds I, III, VI, VII, and part of Ground IX because those proposed claims appeared meritless. Santiago-Ortiz filed the permitted amended claims, and the government opposed them. He did not file a reply.

Ground II: Statute-of-limitations challenge and trial counsel

Santiago-Ortiz argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of Count Four, a murder charge involving a firearm during and in relation to the narcotics conspiracy, and Count Five, a firearm-possession charge. He argued that the five-year limitations period had expired for the underlying narcotics-conspiracy charge in Count Three and therefore also barred the related firearm charges.

The court rejected the argument. It held that Count Four was not subject to a statute of limitations because the charged offense was punishable by death. As to Count Five, the court explained that the firearm offense was continuing because it was tied to a continuing narcotics conspiracy. The trial evidence showed that the conspiracy continued until 2015, and the indictment was returned in 2017, within five years. The court also noted that the firearm charge involved firearms possessed throughout the charged period and that at least one firearm was recovered within the five-year period. The court concluded that counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a meritless dismissal motion. It also stated that the limitations challenge failed as to Count Three.

Grounds IV and V: Proposed witnesses

Santiago-Ortiz argued that trial counsel failed to interview or call Ramon Cruz, an inmate who had information about what Cruz allegedly said regarding firearms, and another inmate who allegedly heard that statement. He also argued that counsel failed to interview and call Yanita Rodriguez, who allegedly was present near the scene on the night of the homicide and could have challenged the claim that Santiago-Ortiz and his brother left and returned with firearms.

An ineffective-assistance claim requires showing both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the alleged error caused prejudice—a reasonable probability that the proceeding would have ended differently. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that failing to interview the witnesses could have been unreasonable. It nevertheless found no prejudice. The court agreed that the witnesses could have opened the door to evidence of additional bad acts and could have been viewed as interested rather than unbiased. Considering the trial evidence as a whole, the court found no reasonable probability that their testimony would have changed the result.

Ground VIII: Jury instructions

Santiago-Ortiz argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to three parts of the jury instructions. First, he claimed that the instruction on Count One omitted a pecuniary-remuneration element. The court held that the government had not relied on or argued that element, so there was no instructional error. In any event, Santiago-Ortiz had not shown that counsel’s decision was objectively unreasonable or prejudicial.

Second, he argued that the instruction on Count Two omitted a second use of the word “intentionally” before the phrase “to kill,” allegedly allowing a manslaughter conviction. The court found no prejudice because the government had not argued that Santiago-Ortiz was liable for causing someone else to kill the victim; its theory was that Santiago-Ortiz himself committed the killing with intent.

Third, he argued that the instruction on Count Four improperly allowed malice aforethought to be shown through reckless and wanton conduct. The court found his reliance on Borden v. United States misplaced because that decision addressed the meaning of “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court found no error in the Count Four instruction and, alternatively, found no showing that counsel’s failure to object was unreasonable or prejudicial.

Ground IX: Appellate counsel

Santiago-Ortiz argued that his appellate lawyer was ineffective for failing to raise the preceding issues on appeal. The court rejected that claim because the underlying trial-counsel claims lacked merit. It also denied, on the previously stated basis, Santiago-Ortiz’s arguments that Count Three was a lesser-included offense of Count Two and that Count Five was a lesser-included offense of Count Four. Alternatively, the court denied those arguments on the merits for the reasons given in its earlier decision.

Disposition

The court denied Santiago-Ortiz’s amended § 2255 motion. It also denied a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).