Magin Villasenor v. United States
689 F. App'x 851
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Magin Villasenor was convicted at trial (2006) for a conspiracy to distribute large quantities of cocaine and marijuana and sentenced to 300 months; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2013 Villasenor filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel Joseph Lopez for poor advice and for misrepresenting government plea offers during pretrial plea negotiations in 2003–2004.
- The government had offered a cooperation-based deal in March 2004 that could avoid a recidivism enhancement, reduce criminal-history points, and yield a guidelines range down to as low as ~158 months if cooperation succeeded; AUSA Alesia memorialized variants of the offer in June and renewed it in September 2004.
- Lopez and Villasenor gave conflicting testimony about what Lopez conveyed: Villasenor said Lopez called the government’s case weak and failed to disclose the renewed cooperation offer; Lopez denied recommending against cooperation, admitted he withheld Alesia’s June letter, but testified Villasenor was unwilling to cooperate.
- Villasenor pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count in July 2004 but withdrew the plea weeks later after Blakely/Booker developments; the government had filed an enhancement information before the plea, and later offered to withdraw it if Villasenor cooperated — an offer he did not accept.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, found Lopez had communicated the June 18 letter and that Villasenor remained adamantly unwilling to cooperate; the court denied § 2255 relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Villasenor failed to show prejudice from counsel’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Villasenor's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez rendered constitutionally deficient assistance during plea negotiations | Lopez advised Villasenor to reject a favorable plea, misstated or withheld offers (June/Sept 2004), and mischaracterized government strength | Lopez communicated the offers and provided reasonable strategic advice; Villasenor was unwilling to cooperate regardless | Court did not decide deficiency conclusively because Villasenor failed to prove prejudice |
| Whether Villasenor suffered Strickland prejudice from counsel’s advice | Had Lopez properly conveyed offers, Villasenor would have accepted the cooperation deal and avoided harsher exposure (recidivism enhancement) | Even if advice was deficient, Villasenor was later offered the same deal (Sept 2004) and never accepted it; he withdrew his guilty plea, erasing prejudice from the plea | No prejudice shown — § 2255 relief denied; appeal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Villasenor, 664 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2011) (direct-appeal decision on Villasenor’s convictions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Wyatt v. United States, 574 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2009) (application of Strickland in § 2255 context)
- McDaniel v. Polley, 847 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2017) (prejudice requirement under ineffective-assistance claims)
- United States v. Hernandez, 948 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1991) (withdrawing plea negates prejudice from that plea)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (role in challenging sentencing facts before Booker)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (sentencing-advisory-guidelines decision allowing plea-withdrawal claims)
- Estremera v. United States, 724 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2013) (renewal of an earlier plea offer can cure ineffective-assistance prejudice)