Jose Buenrostro v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20917
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Buenrostro was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture over 31 kg methamphetamine and sentenced to life without parole due to two prior felony drug convictions.
- This court affirmed on direct appeal; he separately pursued a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in district court, which was denied on the merits.
- After the § 2255 denial, Buenrostro moved under Rule 60(b) to reopen for a new ineffective assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to communicate a plea offer.
- The district court dismissed the Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion; we affirmed the dismissal.
- Buenrostro sought authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, expansion of the record, and release pending review.
- The panel granted expansion of the record but denied authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, concluding no prima facie showing under § 2255.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buenrostro’s proposed second § 2255 motion rests on a new rule of constitutional law | Buenrostro contends Martinez, Frye, Lafler establish new rules | State that none announced a new rule of constitutional law | No new rule; application denied |
| Whether Martinez provides applicable cause for a successive § 2255 motion in federal cases | Martinez applies to ineffective-assistance claims in collateral proceedings | Martinez is inapplicable to federal § 2255 proceedings | Martinez not applicable; motion denied |
| Whether Frye and Lafler establish new constitutional rules for § 2255 purposes | Frye and Lafler create new rules for ineffective assistance in plea situations | They apply established Strickland standards to plea contexts and do not create new rules | Neither Frye nor Lafler creates a new rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (neither a new constitutional rule nor applicable to federal collateral review)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (applies Strickland to plea discussions; not a new rule)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (applies Strickland to failed plea offers; not a new rule)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for plea-denial ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (established standard for ineffective assistance)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (innocent-on-counsel claim in collateral proceedings; cause theory)
- In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 2012) (circuit view that Frye/Lafler did not create new rules)