Acosta v. United States

Background

After a three-week trial, a jury convicted Robert Acosta of conspiring to commit murder-for-hire, two counts of committing murder-for-hire, and two counts of murder during and in relation to a conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine. The court sentenced him principally to life imprisonment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

Acosta then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. Proceeding without a lawyer, he claimed that his lawyers provided ineffective assistance during plea negotiations, at trial, and at sentencing. He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence showing that the murders were connected to a drug conspiracy.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Acosta had to show both that his lawyers’ performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the alleged errors caused actual prejudice—meaning a reasonable probability that the result would have been different.

Plea negotiations. Acosta said he asked his lawyers to seek a plea offer, but they did not do so and encouraged him to proceed to trial. His lawyers denied that account. The court concluded that, even assuming Acosta’s statements were true, he could not show prejudice. The government never made a plea offer, and the record did not show that it would have made one if asked. Acosta also said only that he would have considered an offer, not that he would have accepted it. The court therefore found no reasonable probability that asking about a plea offer would have changed the proceeding.

Trial representation. Acosta argued that his lawyers failed to challenge the government’s witnesses and improperly declined to call family members as defense witnesses. The court found that the trial record contradicted his claim about cross-examination, noting that his lawyers extensively cross-examined the government’s witnesses, including a key witness over several days. The court also held that the decision not to call family members was a reasonable trial strategy. According to one lawyer’s affidavit, interviews indicated that the potential witnesses knew about Acosta’s involvement in the drug business and could have helped the government’s case. Acosta did not explain how their testimony would have helped his defense.

Sentencing representation. Acosta argued that his lawyers should have presented mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court rejected this argument because the murder-for-hire convictions carried a mandatory life sentence. Arguments about mitigating factors could not change that required sentence, so counsel’s failure to make those arguments did not support an ineffective-assistance claim.

Previously raised evidence challenge. The court stated that Acosta’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence had been rejected on his direct appeal. It therefore held that the argument was procedurally barred from being raised again in this collateral proceeding.

Disposition

The court concluded that all of Acosta’s arguments lacked merit and denied his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence under § 2255. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the civil case. It also ruled that Acosta had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. The court further denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.