Amaury Salazar v. United States

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-13715 MARCH 17, 2009
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D.C. Docket Nos. 06-81032-CV-DTKH,
03-80093-CR-DTKH
AMAURY SALAZAR,
Petitioner–Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent–Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 17, 2009)
Before BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges, and TRAGER,* District Judge.
*
Honorable David G. Trager, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New
York, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Amaury Salazar appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence — 360 months of imprisonment and 10
years of supervised release — for intentionally possessing with the intent to
distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(A). In his motion, Salazar argued, in relevant part, that his trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call two critical defense
witnesses at trial. On appeal, Salazar argues that the district court erred in failing
to hold an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his lawyer was ineffective for
failing to call these witnesses because his § 2255 motion and supporting
documents stated facts which, if true, would have entitled him to relief. He asserts
that his pro se allegations raised a factual dispute regarding his lawyer’s
ineffectiveness that could not be resolved conclusively on the record before the
district court, and that warranted an evidentiary hearing. We agree.
I. Standard of Review
We review the denial of an evidentiary hearing in a § 2255 proceeding for
abuse of discretion. Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708, 714 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002).
An evidentiary hearing must be held on a motion to vacate “[u]nless the motion
and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled
2
to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). No evidentiary hearing is necessary, however,
“if it can be conclusively determined from the record that the petitioner was not
denied effective assistance of counsel.” Diaz v. United States, 930 F.2d 832, 834
(11th Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). A hearing is not required when the
petitioner’s allegations are affirmatively contradicted by the record. United States
v. Guerra, 588 F.2d 519, 521 (5th Cir. 1979).
In a § 2255 proceeding, we review a district court’s legal conclusions de
novo and its factual findings for clear error. Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225,
1232 (11th Cir. 2004). We review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Caderno v. United States, 256 F.3d 1213, 1216–17 (11th Cir. 2001). To
make a successful claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must
show that (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient
performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687,
697 (1984). Prejudice is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id.
at 694. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome.” Id. “It is not enough for the defendant to show that
the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. at
693.
3
II. Facts and Discussion
In 2003 the Lake Worth Police Department received word from a
confidential informant, Hairo Roman, that a Cuban male was selling large
quantities of crack cocaine in the Lake Worth area. The sergeant in charge of the
investigation, Randolph Collier, solicited the help of a fellow officer, Oscar
Cardenas, in arranging a buy through Roman. At the request of the police, Roman
made a call to the alleged drug seller and arranged a meeting between Officer
Cardenas (described by Roman to the drug seller simply as a “Columbian friend”
who was interested in purchasing crack cocaine) and the drug seller for later that
evening at a local bar. Officer Cardenas, accompanied by Roman, proceeded to the
bar and waited for the drug seller to arrive. Salazar arrived approximately 90
minutes later in a jeep, accompanied by two passengers, Amanda Harlan and Cesar
Olive.
The subsequent facts were disputed at trial. Both parties agreed that Salazar
exited and proceeded to the back of the jeep. Officer Cardenas, however, testified
that when he approached Salazar at the back of the jeep, Salazar produced a white
bag that contained crack cocaine. Officer Cardenas said that he never assumed
control of the bag, and told Salazar to hold it while he gathered the buy money.
Officer Cardenas then gave the signal for the surveillance units to arrest Salazar.
4
Salazar, on the other hand, denies ever having any cocaine, and contends that
Harlan and Olive could have corroborated this fact.
After the arrest Salazar was taken to the police department. Sergeant Collier
testified at trial that at this point Salazar admitted to possessing crack cocaine.
Salazar also denies ever making this admission. There was no videotape of either
the drug transaction, or the confession,1 nor was any written confession ever
produced. The only other testimony was that of Officer Long, who said that
Salazar gave the bag at issue to Officer Cardenas.
At trial Salazar’s lawyer raised a number of arguments highlighting the
weaknesses of the government’s case: (1) the phone calls allegedly made by
Roman to Salazar were not recorded; (2) Sergeant Collier stated that he saw
Salazar give the white bag to Officer Cardenas, yet Officer Cardenas testified that
Salazar never gave him the bag; (3) it was not credible for the police to take
Salazar to the police department to make a statement and then not record it,
videotape it, or have written evidence of it. However, no defense witnesses were
presented. The jury found Salazar guilty.
In his § 2255 motion, Salazar argued, in relevant part, that his lawyer was
1
There was, however, an audiotape recorded at the drug transaction, but it was in
Spanish, and was not translated at trial other than through the testimony of Officer Cardenas,
which Salazar claims was false. Moreover, the audiotape was of such poor quality that it failed
to definitively prove Salazar’s guilt.
5
ineffective for failing to call his two companions in the jeep on the night of the
arrest, Harlan and Olive, as defense witnesses at trial. He argued that they were
present at the scene and would have been able to corroborate his claim that he
never possessed any crack cocaine and that the district court erred in failing to hold
an evidentiary hearing on this claim. We agree.
If Salazar’s allegations are true, the testimony of Harlan and Olive would
have directly contradicted the testimony of the arresting officers. Salazar argues
that his allegations showed that the failure to call these witnesses prejudiced him in
that it deprived him of a trial whose result was reliable. See Workman v. Tate, 957
F.2d 1339, 1345 (6th Cir. 1992) (finding counsel negligent in failing to interview
“promising witnesses”). If the testimony of Harlan and Olive had been heard and
credited over that of the police officers, he could have been cleared of all charges
against him as only the testimony of the officers connected him to the bag of crack
cocaine.
Under the totality of the circumstances we find that Salazar’s allegations are
not affirmatively contradicted by the record, and find Salazar to be entitled to an
evidentiary hearing to determine both whether his allegations are true in the first
instance, and whether counsel’s failure to call these witnesses constituted
6
ineffective assistance of counsel.2
Accordingly, we REVERSE the order denying relief and REMAND for an
evidentiary hearing on Salazar’s claims.
2
Without any statement from Salazar’s lawyer, it is impossible to say whether the
decision not to present any defense witnesses was strategic, or deficient. Nor did the government
request that the court order defense counsel to file an affidavit setting forth the reasons for not
calling those witnesses.
7