Gonzalez v. United States, 722 F.3d 118

Background

Pedro Gonzalez pleaded guilty in 2001 to narcotics and bribery counts pursuant to a plea agreement; he admitted delivery of multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and heroin and faced a Guidelines range long above the sentence ultimately imposed.
Retained counsel Carlos Perez-Olivo represented Gonzalez; Gonzalez later alleged Perez-Olivo provided poor representation (minimal contact, no investigation, no sentencing submissions) and failed to file an appeal as requested.
Perez-Olivo was later disbarred and convicted of unrelated serious crimes; those events prompted further collateral review.
Gonzalez filed a second § 2255 motion (2009) asserting ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at plea and sentencing stages; the district court found deficient performance but denied relief for lack of prejudice and declined to order discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal the Second Circuit vacated the denial of the § 2255 motion as to sentencing, holding Gonzalez is entitled to resentencing with competent counsel; it affirmed denial of relief as to withdrawal of plea and declined to grant discovery/hearing on the plea-related IAC claim.

Issues

Issue	Gonzalez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether counsel's alleged pre-plea failures (investigation, discovery, bill of particulars) caused prejudice such that Gonzalez would have gone to trial	Perez-Olivo failed to investigate or obtain discovery; Gonzalez would have insisted on trial absent that advice	Evidence against Gonzalez was overwhelming; Gonzalez’s plea admissions and lack of corroboration make his claims conclusory	Denied relief on plea IAC: court found Gonzalez failed to develop competent, specific evidence of pre-plea investigative failures and thus no hearing or vacatur required
Whether counsel's deficient performance at sentencing prejudiced Gonzalez under Strickland	Perez-Olivo did virtually no advocacy at sentencing (no memos, no challenges, minimal contact), so there is a reasonable probability of a different sentence	Even if performance was deficient, Gonzalez cannot show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence; reimposition would risk a windfall	Granted relief as to sentencing: prejudicial performance established; remanded for resentencing with competent counsel
Whether Gonzalez was entitled to discovery or an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 claims	Requested discovery and a hearing to develop factual record supporting IAC claims	District court’s record (including plea allocution) and Gonzalez’s failure to produce specific corroborating evidence do not warrant discovery/hearing	No discovery/hearing for plea-related IAC (insufficient specific factual allegations); resentencing remand does not require further discovery on plea claim
Whether Gonzalez should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea based on alleged coercion and counsel failures	He sought withdrawal alleging threats and that counsel misled/failed him	Court stressed plea colloquy, belated and uncorroborated coercion claims, and that alleged threats were not counsel-related	Denied withdrawal of plea (no entitlement to vacatur of conviction); only resentencing ordered

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for IAC claims attacking guilty pleas)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise on deportation consequences)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (Padilla not retroactive on collateral review for convictions already final)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (limits on vacating convictions/sentences where outcome differences do not produce fundamental unfairness)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (circumstances where counsel’s failure is so pervasive relief may be warranted)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (plea allocutions carry strong presumption of truth)
Bennett v. United States, 663 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2011) (procedural standards for IAC and § 2255 proceedings)