Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Cruz

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

July 20, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ODIS DE LA CRUZ, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge

         The petitioner, Odis de la Cruz, seeks to vacate her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In support of her § 2255 petition, the defendant contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to research relevant law and facts of the case, interview potential witnesses, and file any substantive pretrial motions; that counsel’s erroneous advice regarding the consequences of a guilty plea was constitutionally ineffective in light of Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012); and that enhancements imposed at sentencing are unconstitutional under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013).

         I. Relevant Procedural History

         On February 2, 2004, the defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and thirteen counts of using a communications facility to facilitate a drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). On March 8, 2004, the defendant filed a Motion to Revise Plea on the purported basis that she inadvertently pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to distribute that involved at least one kilogram of heroin. On April 27, 2004, the Court denied her motion. In September 2004, the Court held a three- day evidentiary sentencing hearing and imposed a within Guidelines range sentence of 292 months. After an appeal by the defendant, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and remanded for re-sentencing.

         At resentencing on May 16, 2006, the Court re-imposed a sentence of 292 months. On May 23, 2006, the defendant filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the sentence but subsequently dismissed the appeal.

         On May 27, 2014, defendant filed her present § 2255 petition. On March 10, 2016, after a long series of continuances, the government filed its opposition to the defendant’s motion.[1]

         II. Discussion

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 imposed a one-year period of statute of limitations on motions filed pursuant to § 2255. In pertinent part, § 2255 provides:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such government action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.