Sabella v. United States

Background

Joseph Sabella, proceeding without a lawyer, petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The opinion states that Sabella was a “made member” and captain of the Bonanno Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra and that the charged conduct involved extortions, frauds, and assaults.

The plea agreement calculated a net sentencing-guidelines offense level of 28 and a criminal-history category of II, producing a recommended range of 87 to 108 months. Sabella pleaded guilty on February 12, 2019, and the court approved the plea on May 20, 2019. On July 18, 2019, the court sentenced him to 87 months, the bottom of the guidelines range.

Sabella asserted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. He argued that attorney Joseph Corozzo should have advised him to accept an earlier, purported 63-month offer; should have challenged sentencing enhancements; and should have raised the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis at sentencing.

Legal standard

The court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington. Sabella had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable professional standard and that, without counsel’s errors, the result probably would have been different. The court also explained that a defendant has a right to effective assistance when considering an actual plea offer, but not a right to receive a plea offer or to have a judge accept one.

Analysis

Earlier plea discussions. The court held that Sabella could not obtain relief based on the November 2018 discussions because they involved only an informal offer. According to the opinion, the government extended one formal offer a week before trial, and Sabella knowingly and voluntarily accepted that offer. The court also found that Corozzo’s conduct during negotiations was objectively reasonable: he kept Sabella updated and acted at Sabella’s direction. The court therefore rejected this ineffective-assistance claim.

Sentencing enhancements. The court held that Corozzo reasonably declined to challenge the enhancements because the plea agreement expressly waived the right to contest them at sentencing. Sabella had confirmed under oath that he understood the plea agreement and how the sentencing guidelines applied. The court further stated that any objection would have been overruled because the court independently determined that the guidelines calculations were correct.

United States v. Davis. The court held that Davis did not apply to Sabella’s conviction for racketeering conspiracy. It explained that Davis concerned whether conspiracy qualifies as a crime of violence in connection with a firearm offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), while Sabella’s conviction was for racketeering conspiracy itself. The court therefore found that counsel’s decision not to raise Davis was objectively reasonable.

Disposition

The court concluded that the motion papers and case records conclusively showed that Sabella was not entitled to relief, so no evidentiary hearing was necessary. Judge Hellerstein denied Sabella’s § 2255 petition, declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Sabella had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation, and directed the clerk to close the case.