Morales v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4959
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Morales was indicted in 1994 with 32 co-defendants on multiple RICO and related charges, including Count 27 conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and cocaine base, and a separate possession with intent to distribute cocaine base count.
- Trial occurred over months; the courtroom gallery was reserved for jury selection, with instructions that no spectators would be seated among prospective jurors on the day of selection.
- After a multi-month trial, Morales was convicted on all counts and sentenced to multiple life terms, including a life sentence on Count 27 based on conspiracy to possess cocaine and/or cocaine base.
- Morales appealed, and after direct review, he filed pro se §2255 motions arguing ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, alleging public-trial closure and improper sentencing on Count 27.
- The district court denied the §2255 motion without a hearing, concluding no evidence showed a courtroom closure and that the sentencing issue lacked prejudice, with respect to the appellate claim based on Orozco-Prada.
- On appeal, Morales challenges (i) trial and appellate counsel's handling of the public-trial issue, (ii) trial counsel's handling of the gallery reservation, and (iii) appellate counsel's handling of the Count 27 sentence; the court addresses these under Strickland standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public trial: counsel failed to challenge closure | Morales argues the closure violated the Sixth Amendment and that counsel were ineffective | Government contends no clear closure occurred and, even if so, counsel acted reasonably | No plausible ineffective-assistance claim; closure not shown to be meaningful; failure to object not unreasonable |
| Gallery reservation: trial counsel's objection | Counsel should have objected to gallery reservation during voir dire | No reversible error or prejudice from the temporary, limited non-public proceedings | No basis for finding ineffective assistance based on gallery reservation alone |
| Count 27 sentence: appellate counsel's failure to appeal | Appellate counsel should have challenged the life sentence for Count 27 under Orozco-Prada | Morales was already serving multiple life sentences; any error was not prejudicial | Morales not prejudiced by appellate counsel's alleged failure; open question on Peters/Rule but not resolved here |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance and prejudice required for ineffective assistance)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (public-trial right cannot be harmlessly ignored)
- Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076 (2d Cir. 1984) (general verdicts on multi-drug conspiracies ambiguous; lowest-sentence rule)
- Barnes, 158 F.3d 662 (2d Cir. 1998) (apply lowest-sentencing-range rule where jury verdict is general)
- Zillgitt, 286 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2002) (confirms Orozco-Prada framework for multi-drug conspiracy verdicts)
- Peters, 617 F.2d 503 (7th Cir. 1980) (permitted inference of conspiracy type when multiple drugs involved (non-adopted by this circuit))
- Parisi v. United States, 529 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2008) (plausibility standard for §2255 hearings regarding ineffective assistance)
- Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (short-hand for when counsel failures amount to structural defect)
- Gibbons v. Savage, 555 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (context of non-trivial courtroom closures and public-trial effects)