United States v. Ancira ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 95-50470
Summary Calendar
___________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD M. ANCIRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
(A-95-CA-225)
________________________________________________
March 25, 1996
Before GARWOOD, JONES and DeMOSS Circuit Judges.*
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:
Defendant-appellant Richard M. Ancira (Ancira) pleaded guilty
to the charge of possession with intent to distribute more than 100
grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His
conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Ancira presently
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set
aside or correct his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
We affirm.
Facts and Proceedings Below
Ancira was arrested on December 11, 1990, in Austin, Texas.
A confidential informant alerted the Austin Police Department that
Ancira was a heroin dealer who had previously sold heroin to the
informant. After giving the police a description of Ancira and his
vehicle, the informant contacted Ancira and arranged to purchase an
eighth of one ounce of heroin. The police, who had already placed
Ancira’s vehicle under surveillance based on the informant’s
description, observed Ancira leave the residence from which he had
arranged this meeting with the informant. When Ancira arrived at
the designated meeting place, and the informant confirmed Ancira’s
identity, the police determined that they had probable cause and
arrested Ancira. Ancira was searched incident to his arrest, and
police officers found thirty-three balloons of heroin and $1,680 in
cash. Ancira then disclosed the location of additional heroin at
his residence, and, after obtaining a search warrant based on this
information, the police uncovered another 487 balloons of heroin.
The total amount of heroin seized incident to Ancira’s arrest and
at his residence was 108.89 grams.
Ancira was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute more than 100 grams of heroin (count one), in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and possession with intent to
2
distribute more than 100 grams of heroin (count two), in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He complained that the police did not
have probable cause to arrest him, but the district court denied
his motion to suppress the evidence obtained incident to his
arrest. Thereafter, Ancira entered into a conditional plea
agreement whereby he would plead guilty to the second count of his
indictment while preserving his right to appeal the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The district court
sentenced Ancira to a 240-month term of imprisonment, a 5-year term
of supervised release, and imposed a $50 mandatory assessment.
Ancira appealed his conviction and sentence to this Court, and
we affirmed, see United States v. Ancira, No. 91-8503 (5th Cir.
March 19, 1992) (unpublished), holding that the district court did
not err (1) in denying Ancira’s motion to suppress, and (2) in
considering Ancira’s prior state convictions in deciding to enhance
his sentence as a “career offender” under the sentencing
guidelines. Id.1
Ancira subsequently, on April 20, 1995, filed in the district
court the instant motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence. In that motion, Ancira claimed
that he was denied effective assistance of counsel,2 that the
1
In his direct appeal to this Court, Ancira challenged his
conviction and sentence in only these two respects.
2
Specifically, Ancira asserted that his counsel’s performance
was deficient in that counsel: (1) failed to properly investigate
3
district court violated Rule 11 during his rearraignment, and that
the government breached the plea agreement. Ancira also raised
several issues relating to application of the sentencing guidelines
and the statutory requirement that notice be given to a defendant
of the government’s intent to seek enhancement of the defendant’s
sentence prior to the defendant’s entry of a guilty plea. The
district court denied Ancira’s motion. Ancira now appeals.
Discussion
It is well-settled that a collateral challenge to a conviction
or sentence “may not do service for an appeal.” United States v.
Frady, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1593, reh’g denied, 102 S.Ct. 2287 (1982);
see also United States v. Walker, 68 F.3d 931, 934 (5th Cir. 1995).
“[T]o obtain collateral relief a prisoner must clear a
significantly higher hurdle than would exist on direct
appeal. . . . [T]o obtain collateral relief based on
trial errors to which no contemporaneous objection was
made, a convicted defendant must show both (1) ‘cause’
excusing his double procedural default, and (2) ‘actual
prejudice’ resulting from the errors of which he
complains.” Frady, 102 S.Ct. at 1593-94 (footnote
omitted).
It is also clear that an appellate court will not consider a
section 2255 claim raised for the first time on appeal. United
Ancira’s prior convictions and challenge the application of the
sentencing guidelines’ “career offender” provisions; (2) failed to
investigate and raise the issue of Ancira’s mental competence; (3)
failed to request a downward departure based on Ancira’s mental
state; (4) failed to request a downward departure for Ancira’s
acceptance of responsibility after the “career offender” provisions
were determined to be applicable; and (5) failed to adequately
inform Ancira of the possible (sentencing) repercussions of his
guilty plea.
4
States v. McKnight, 693 F.2d 476, 476 (5th Cir. 1982). Finally,
this Court has observed that a section 2255 petitioner may bring a
collateral challenge only upon “issues of constitutional or
jurisdictional magnitude.” United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228,
232 (5th Cir. 1991)(citation omitted), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 978(1992). If a petitioner presents an error that is not of such
magnitude, then he must show that the error “could not have been
raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a
complete miscarriage of justice.” Walker, 68 F.3d at 934 (citation
omitted); see also Hill v. United States, 82 S.Ct. 468, 471, reh’g
denied, 82 S.Ct. 640 (1962) (section 2255 relief is available only
if the alleged error is a “fundamental defect which inherently
results in a complete miscarriage of justice . . . [and] present[s]
‘exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded
by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent’”) (citation omitted).
In reviewing a district court’s denial of a section 2255
motion, this Court reviews the district court’s factual findings
for clear error, and questions of law are reviewed de novo. United
States v. Gipson, 985 F.2d 212, 214 (5th Cir. 1993).
I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Ancira contends that he was denied effective assistance of
counsel in several respects relating to his conviction and
sentence. To obtain section 2255 relief based on a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show not only
5
that his attorney’s performance was deficient, but also that the
deficiency prejudiced the defense. United States v. Smith, 915
F.2d 959, 963 (5th Cir. 1990). In order to demonstrate such a
deficiency, the petitioner must prove that counsel’s performance
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland v.
Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, reh’g denied, 104 S.Ct. 3562(1984). To prove that the deficiency prejudiced the defense, the
petitioner must demonstrate a “reasonable probability” that, “but
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.” Id. at 2068. This two-part analysis
applies equally to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
arising out of the plea process. Hill v. Lockhart, 106 S.Ct. 366,
370 (1985). Accordingly, the petitioner must establish a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s alleged failures and
misrepresentations, the petitioner “would not have pleaded guilty
and would have insisted on going to trial.” Czere v. Butler, 833
F.2d 59, 63 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).
A. Failure to Properly Investigate Ancira’s Prior
Convictions and Challenge the Application of the
Sentencing Guidelines’ “Career Offender” Provisions
First, Ancira contends that counsel failed to investigate the
prior convictions which were used to enhance his sentence. Ancira
suggests that, had counsel investigated these convictions, it would
have been plain that the convictions should have been consolidated
and treated as a single conviction pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
6
4A1.2(a)(2); such a consolidation would have prohibited application
of the enhancement provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Ancira ignores
the fact that his lawyer raised this issue at sentencing, however,
which clearly collapses this allegation.
Second, Ancira argues that counsel failed to challenge the
application of the sentencing guidelines’ “career offender”
provisions. This issue, however, was addressed in Ancira’s direct
appeal. We found that Ancira had four prior felony convictions
upon which the district court properly based its decision to apply
the “career offender” provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. We further
held that Ancira had failed to provide any evidence that his prior
convictions had been consolidated, observing that sentences which
run concurrently and are imposed on the same day are not required
to be consolidated for guideline purposes. United States v.
Ancira, No. 91-8503 at 8-9 (5th Cir. March 19, 1992) (unpublished)
(citation omitted). It is well-settled that an issue which has
been raised and ruled upon adversely to a defendant on direct
appeal may not be relitigated in the context of a section 2255
motion. United States v. McCollom, 664 F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir.
1981), cert. denied, 102 S.Ct. 1989 (1982).3
3
Furthermore, even if this Court were to address Ancira’s
contention that his prior convictions should be consolidated, there
is no support for a finding that all of his prior convictions
should be treated as a single offense. Ancira was convicted of two
(controlled substance) felonies that occurred in February 1988, and
two (controlled substance) felonies occurring in July 1988. Ancira
pleaded guilty to and was sentenced on the February charges in
7
B. Failure to Investigate and Raise the Issue of Mental
Incompetence
Ancira contends that he was mentally incompetent to plead
guilty, a fact which counsel should have discovered and raised
before the trial court. Specifically, Ancira argues that counsel
should have petitioned the district court for a downward departure
based on Ancira’s “diminished capacity”——due to his documented Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)4——pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13.
In considering whether counsel was ineffective in the
sentencing phase following a plea, “[A] court must determine
whether there is a reasonable probability that but for trial
counsel’s errors the defendant’s non-capital sentence would have
been significantly less harsh.” Spriggs v. Collins, 993 F.2d 85,
88 (5th Cir. 1993) (footnote omitted)(emphasis in original).
March 1988, and was convicted and sentenced on the July charges in
October 1988. Under even the broadest construction of the
consolidation provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2), the “March” and
“October” convictions must be viewed as separate for enhancement
purposes. United States v. Ancira, No. 91-8503 at 8-10 (5th Cir.
March 19, 1992) (unpublished). Therefore, under the “career
offender” provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, Ancira has “at least two
prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense”, and was properly sentenced as a
“career offender”.
4
Ancira’s presentence report (PSR) of July 19, 1991, asserts
that Ancira has been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD, a condition
which causes Ancira to experience “panic attacks,” severe anxiety,
hallucinations, and significant fluctuations in his blood pressure.
PSR ¶ 38. The PSR further indicates that Ancira failed to show up
at the inpatient psychological treatment facility where he was to
have received medical assistance with his psychological and drug
problems; his failure to report to this treatment facility
constituted a violation of his parole. Id.
8
U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 provides that, “[A] lower sentence may be
warranted to reflect the extent to which reduced mental capacity
contributed to the commission of the offense . . .” This Court has
clarified that, while a defendant’s reduced mental capacity need
not be the sole cause of the offense, it must be a contributing
cause. See United States v. Soliman, 954 F.2d 1012, 1014 (5th Cir.
1992). In the present case, Ancira fails to demonstrate how his
condition contributed in any way to his commission of the offense
of conviction——possession of heroin with the intent to distribute.
Therefore, there exists no reasonable probability that, had counsel
urged the trial court to make a (section 5K2.13) downward departure
reflecting Ancira’s “diminished capacity,” the trial court would
have so departed from the applicable guideline range and imposed a
significantly less harsh sentence than was actually imposed.5
C. Failure to Request a Downward Departure for Ancira’s
Acceptance of Responsibility
Ancira contends that when the district court enhanced his
offense level pursuant to the “career offender” provisions of
5
Ancira has also suggested that he was deprived of a fair trial
because counsel failed to petition the district court to hold a
competency hearing. In light of the fact that the district court
asked Ancira at his rearraignment whether he had ever suffered from
any mental or physical impairments “that might affect [his] memory
or judgment or have any effect on [his] understanding of these
proceedings?”——and Ancira responded that he had not——the district
court properly viewed Ancira as competent. Therefore, even if
counsel’s failure to petition the court for a competency hearing
were otherwise cognizable, the district court’s inquiry into this
matter rendered any impact of such a failure harmless.
9
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, counsel should have sought the two-level
reduction to which Ancira was allegedly entitled under U.S.S.G. §
3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. It appears from the PSR,
however, that Ancira did in fact receive this two-level reduction
under section 3E1.1, as the PSR, which was adopted by the district
court for sentencing purposes, implicitly made this reduction. As
enhanced, the statutory maximum for Ancira’s offense of conviction
was forty years. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). The offense level
corresponding to this maximum sentence under section 4B1.1 is
thirty-four. The PSR, however, assigned Ancira an offense level of
thirty-two. Considering that the PSR reduced Ancira’s pre-
enhancement base offense level by two levels “for Acceptance of
Responsibility”, it appears that the PSR simply adjusted Ancira’s
enhanced offense level accordingly. See PSR ¶ 15. Therefore,
Ancira has no claim that counsel’s performance was deficient, or
that there was prejudice, in this regard.
D. Failure to Adequately Inform Ancira of the Possible
Repercussions of His Guilty Plea
Ancira further contends that his guilty plea was made
involuntarily, as it was the product of counsel’s incorrect and
misleading advice. Aside from making this bald assertion, however,
Ancira makes no argument and advances no facts in support of this
contention:
10
“Absent evidence in the record, a court cannot consider
a habeas petitioner’s bald assertions on a critical issue
in his pro se petition (in state and federal court),
unsupported and unsupportable by anything else contained
in the record, to be of probative value.” Ross v.
Estelle, 694 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1983) (footnote
omitted).6
In fact, counsel advised Ancira in a March 4, 1991, letter
discussing the plea agreement that, “Neither I nor anyone else for
that matter, can state with specific accuracy what the sentencing
authorities will recommend to the Court.”
Furthermore, Ancira testified in open court that he had not
been threatened, forced, or coerced into pleading guilty, nor had
anyone promised him anything other than what was contained in the
written plea agreement that he and his lawyer had signed.
Accordingly, the district court found that Ancira’s plea was freely
and voluntarily made, concluding that Ancira had received an
adequate opportunity to advise the court of any reservations or
misunderstandings he might have had regarding the plea agreement.
Ancira offers no argument or evidence to overcome the “formidable
barrier” to challenging these findings by the district court. See
6
Ancira also asserts for the first time on appeal that counsel
failed to raise the issue that Ancira was entitled to notice——prior
to entering his plea——that the government intended to seek
enhancement pursuant to the “career offender” provisions of
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. This assertion, unaccompanied by any support or
explanation, likewise has no probative value in the present
context.
11
Blackledge v. Allison, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629 (1977).7
II. Breach of Plea Agreement
Ancira contends that the government breached the plea
agreement in the present case because Ancira was assured that he
would not be charged as a “career offender.” This Court has noted
that:
“When a defendant pleads guilty on the basis of a promise
by his defense attorney or the prosecutor, whether or not
such promise is fulfillable, breach of that promise
taints the voluntariness of his plea.” Davis v. Butler,
825 F.2d 892, 894 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting McKenzie v.
Wainwright, 632 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1980)).
However, a mere “understanding” on the defendant’s part that he
would serve a lesser sentence——pursuant to the plea agreement——than
the one he ultimately received will not invalidate his guilty plea.
Self v. Blackburn, 751 F.2d 789, 792-93 (5th Cir. 1985). In order
for an unkept plea bargain to constitute a basis for habeas relief,
the petitioner must demonstrate: “(1) exactly what the terms of the
alleged promise were; (2) exactly when, where, and by whom such a
promise was made; and (3) the precise identity of an eyewitness to
the promise.” Id. (quoting Hayes v. Maggio, 699 F.2d 198, 203-204
7
Apart from his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in this
context, Ancira suggests that his guilty plea was not voluntary
because he was not aware that a greater sentence could be imposed.
The March 4, 1991, letter from counsel, supra, clearly should have
made Ancira aware that his sentence would ultimately depend on “the
sentencing authorities” and the court; therefore, there is no merit
to Ancira’s claim that his plea was involuntary because he received
a sentence——within the relevant guideline range——that was greater
than he had hoped for.
12
(5th Cir. 1983)).
In relevant part, the written plea agreement in the present
case——signed by Ancira personally and by his attorney and the
Assistant United States Attorney——established that:
“The United States of America . . . agrees not to pursue
further Title 21 or Title 18 offenses against this
defendant with regard to the facts known to the
government at the execution of this agreement.
. . . The United States of America has made no agreement
with the defendant or his counsel concerning any possible
sentence.”
This language does not state or imply a promise on the part of the
government not to charge Ancira as a “career offender” pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 or not to recommend that he be so treated.
Furthermore, it was the probation office in Austin, Texas, and
not the U.S. Attorney’s office, that recommended application of the
“career offender” provisions in this case. See PSR ¶ 29. The
probation office was not a signatory to the plea agreement, so this
recommendation——which was ultimately adopted by the district court——
cannot be attributed to any party to the plea agreement.
III. Violation of Rule 11
Ancira argues that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(c) in failing to admonish him that he could receive a
sentence greater than that contemplated by the parties to the plea
agreement. However, this alleged failure to comply with the
requirements of Rule 11 constitutes neither a constitutional nor a
jurisdictional deficiency. United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379,
13
1385 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 321 (1989). Neither has
Ancira shown that this alleged failure to comply with Rule 11 could
not have been raised on direct appeal, nor that it “resulted in a
‘complete miscarriage of justice’ or in a proceeding ‘inconsistent
with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.’” Id. (citation
omitted). Therefore, this allegation of error may not be
considered in a collateral attack under section 2255.8
IV. Government’s Failure to Give Notice of Intent to Seek
Enhancement
Ancira contends that the government failed to file notice that
it intended to seek an enhancement of his sentence, a violation of
21 U.S.C. § 851.9 However, section 851 does not apply to a
defendant whose sentence is enhanced under the sentencing
guidelines——in this case, pursuant to the career offender
provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1——as long as the enhanced sentence is
8
The transcript of the rearraignment hearing reflects that the
district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11(c). The
court informed Ancira of the maximum sentence (forty years) he
faced, and directed that the terms of the plea agreement be read
into the record. The court further explained that Ancira’s
sentence would ultimately be determined by the court based on the
statutory guideline range recommended by the probation office, a
guideline range calculated with Ancira’s criminal history in mind.
9
Ancira also argues that the government’s enhancement of his
sentence was prohibited by the plea agreement, which asserted that
the government would not pursue further Title 18 or Title 21
offenses. Any argument that the parties could have reasonably
understood this assertion to extend to enhancement of Ancira’s
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 collapses in light of the
immediately following provision in the Plea Agreement: “The United
States of America has made no agreement with the defendant or his
counsel concerning any possible sentence.”
14
within the statutory range, as is the case here. See United
States v. Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 976 (1991).10 Therefore, “Since the Sentencing
Guidelines do not require that the defendant be given notice when
the Government intends to seek Career Offender status,” the
government did not need to give Ancira notice in the present case
prior to sentencing him under the guidelines. Id. (footnote
omitted).
V. Erroneous Application of the Sentencing Guidelines
Ancira argues that the district court failed to apply the
sentencing guidelines properly in two respects: (1) his diminished
mental capacity entitled him to a downward departure pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13; and (2) his acceptance of responsibility
entitled him to a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. While
we considered the merits of certain claims related to these
contentions in the context of addressing Ancira’s allegations of
ineffective assistance of counsel, supra, we need not do so here as
it is well-settled that, “A district court’s technical application
of the Guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional issue”
cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Vaughn, 955
F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, neither has Ancira
demonstrated that these alleged misapplications of the sentencing
10
The (enhanced) sentence ultimately imposed against Ancira——240
months——falls within the statutory range of 5 to 40 years. See 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
15
guidelines could not have been raised on direct appeal, nor that
they “resulted in a ‘complete miscarriage of justice’ or in a
proceeding ‘inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair
procedure.’” United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1385 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 932 (1989) (citation omitted).
VI. Improper Denial of Evidentiary Hearing
Finally, Ancira complains that the district court erred when
it denied him an evidentiary hearing. However, an evidentiary
hearing is not necessary when claims brought pursuant to a section
2255 petition may be clearly refuted without examining evidence
beyond the record. United States v. Smith, 915 F.2d 959, 964 (5th
Cir. 1990). The record is clearly adequate to dispose fairly of
Ancira’s present section 2255 allegations.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is
AFFIRMED.
16