Tellado v. United States
745 F.3d 48
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Tellado was indicted in a drug conspiracy and pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute controlled substances, including cocaine and heroin.
- The plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal or collaterally attack the sentence if it did not exceed 188 months.
- Tellado was designated a career offender under §4B1.1 based on two prior CT §21a-277(a) narcotics convictions, obtained via Alford pleas.
- The district court conducted a Rule 11 colloquy; it discussed the waiver’s scope but did not expressly mention the term “collateral attack.”
- Tellado was sentenced to 188 months; Savage (2008) later held an Alford-based CT §21a-277 conviction could not support a career-offender enhancement.
- Tellado filed a §2255 motion; the district court denied as time-bar and for waiver; Tellado also sought to amend to add an ineffective assistance claim, which was denied. The Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the collateral-attack waiver valid? | Tellado asserts waiver not knowing/voluntary due to missing collateral-attack wording | US argues waiver was adequately explained and knowingly accepted | Waiver valid; not plain error |
| Did Rule 11 omissions constitute plain error? | Tellado contends lack of explicit collateral-attack phrasing undermined knowing waiver | US argues district court’s inquiry was adequate and plain-error not shown | No plain-error; inquiry adequate; waiver enforceable |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying amendment for ineffective assistance? | Tellado seeks IAC claim based on counsel’s failure to object to career-offender enhancement | US contends amendment would be futile; McCoy controls | District court did not abuse discretion; amendment properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959 (2d Cir. 2008) (Alford plea-based §21a-277 convictions may not support career-offender enhancement)
- United States v. Cook, 722 F.3d 477 (2d Cir. 2013) (plain-error review applies to Rule 11 errors not objected to at plea)
- United States v. Yang Chia Tien, 720 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 2013) (plain-error standard applied to Rule 11 violations)
- United States v. Roitman, 245 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) (minor omissions in waiver language do not vitiate waiver)
- United States v. McCoy, 707 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013) (counsel not required to anticipate changes in law for IAC claims to fail)
- Harrington v. United States, 689 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2012) (heavy deference to counsel’s performance; objective reasonableness)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (Rule 11 violations focus on not due process)