United States v. Cole, Philippe
594 F. App'x 35
2d Cir.2015Background
- On Sept. 2, 2012, Cole and Philippe participated in a violent home invasion in the Bronx: the female victim was bound with duct tape, held for ~3 days, sexually exploited by accomplices, and the male victim was lured, battered, and stabbed; $40,000 was taken from a safe.
- Defendants were charged with Hobbs Act conspiracy and robbery, conspiracy to commit kidnapping and kidnapping, and using a firearm in furtherance of those crimes (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- On the day trial was to begin, both pled guilty to all five counts without a government plea agreement; the district court conducted a Fatico hearing to resolve disputed facts about sexual exploitation and a ransom demand.
- The district court found sexual exploitation and that a ransom demand was made; it calculated a Guidelines offense level of 47, placed Philippe in Criminal History Category V and treated Cole as a career offender.
- Each defendant received consecutive life sentences plus seven years; they appealed arguing (1) pleas were unknowing/involuntary, (2) sentences were unreasonable/procedurally flawed, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it rejected the first two claims on the merits (or plain-error review where appropriate) and declined to reach ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal (§ 2255 preferred).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness/knowledge of guilty pleas | Government: pleas valid; no constitutional requirement of plea agreement | Cole/Philippe: pleas involuntary because no gov’t plea agreement and deficiencies in plea colloquies (Rule 11 omissions, Pimentel letter issues) | Affirmed. No constitutional defect; plain-error review where applicable and defendants failed to show prejudicial error. | |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence (Guidelines calculations and enhancements) | Government: district court properly applied Guidelines, enhancements supported by Fatico findings | Defendants: contest ransom enhancement, serious bodily injury, sexual‑exploitation enhancement, and criminal history scoring | Affirmed. District court’s factual findings (preponderance standard) supported enhancements and calculation; any potential error on ransom enhancement was harmless because court would have imposed same sentence. | |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Government: sentence within permissible range given crime seriousness and histories | Defendants: sentences shockingly high and unsupported | Affirmed. Sentences not substantively unreasonable given the gravity of offenses and criminal histories. | |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Defendants: counsel deficient in ways affecting plea and sentence | Government: such claims are collateral matters | Court declined to decide on direct appeal and directed defendants to raise claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 | Dismissed on direct appeal; § 2255 is appropriate forum per Massaro. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yang Chia Tien, 720 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 2013) (plain-error review of unpreserved Rule 11 defects)
- United States v. Pimentel, 932 F.2d 1029 (2d Cir. 1991) (purpose of Pimentel letter to inform defendants of likely Guidelines range)
- United States v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard for reasonableness review)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing)
- United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (procedural and substantive reasonableness principles)
- United States v. Reyes, 9 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 1993) (district court’s acceptance of responsibility finding is factual)
- United States v. Escobar-Posado, 112 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) (approach to ransom enhancement under Guidelines)
- United States v. Studley, 47 F.3d 569 (2d Cir. 1995) (attributing reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators under § 1B1.3)
- United States v. Singletary, 458 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (judicial factfinding for sentencing enhancements is permissible)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (discussing facts that increase mandatory minimums; sentencing factfinding principles)
- United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard for sentencing error)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness backstop)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claims properly raised in § 2255 proceedings)