United States v. Crespo
651 F. App'x 10
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant David J. Crespo pleaded guilty to mail fraud in the District of Connecticut; appeal challenges plea validity, sentencing, restitution, and related procedures.
- At plea colloquy the court recited mail-fraud elements including specific intent to defraud; Crespo answered “Yes.” The Government also provided a factual proffer.
- Crespo expressed post-plea doubts and asked at one hearing whether he should plead guilty; the court advised him to consult counsel but he never moved to withdraw the plea.
- Crespo sought to proceed pro se or hybrid; the court retained appointed counsel after Crespo and counsel reconciled and Crespo accepted counsel’s assistance through sentencing.
- At sentencing the court considered intended-loss findings (adding 14 offense-level points), ordered restitution equal to purchase price with returned art to be sold to avoid windfalls, and addressed a government motion about alleged Wikipedia tampering.
- Crespo raised claims of coerced testimony at sentencing, procedural and substantive sentencing error, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual basis for plea | Government: colloquy + factual proffer satisfied Rule 11(b)(3) | Crespo: did not admit specific-intent facts the Government urged | Court: Affirmed — plea valid; Crespo admitted elements at colloquy and Government proffer sufficed |
| Withdrawal of plea / court advising consult counsel | Gov: Crespo never moved to withdraw; change of heart is not fair and just | Crespo: court should have allowed or sua sponte allowed withdrawal when he expressed doubts | Court: Affirmed — no motion to withdraw; dissatisfaction/reevaluation insufficient |
| Right to self-representation / hybrid counsel | Gov: court properly found waiver abandoned by conduct; hybrid not required | Crespo: court denied his right to proceed pro se or hybrid representation | Court: Affirmed — no Sixth Amendment violation; request was abandoned and hybrid representation is not guaranteed |
| Procedural sentencing challenges (findings, §3553(a)) | Gov: district court explained findings, considered §3553(a) factors | Crespo: court made no findings, miscalculated intended loss, failed to consider §3553(a) | Court: Affirmed — court issued findings and memorandum; intended-loss supported; no mechanical requirement for rote recitation of §3553(a) |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Gov: within Guidelines and reasonable | Crespo: undue weight to intended loss; sentence unreasonable | Court: Affirmed — sentence within Guidelines and permissible range |
| Restitution calculation | Gov: restitution as purchase price and return/sale of art avoids windfalls; reasonable approximation permitted | Crespo: treating fake art as worthless inflated victims’ losses | Court: Affirmed — methodology reasonable and avoided need for ex ante appraisals |
| Coercion of sentencing testimony / Fifth Amendment | Gov: court properly considered government motion and evidence; any inference was minor | Crespo: court threatened to infer guilt from silence, coercing testimony | Court: Affirmed — reading of record shows court relied on government evidence; any error was not plain or prejudicial |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Gov: no deficient performance with provable prejudice on record | Crespo: counsel failed to object to plea colloquy, not letting him withdraw, failure to object to Fifth Amendment issue, and permitting expert interview | Court: Affirmed-in-part and dismissed remainder without prejudice — no clear Strickland error on the developed record; other claims left for collateral review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garcia, 587 F.3d 509 (2d Cir.) (Rule 11 factual-basis standards)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (Sup. Ct.) (standard of review for plea challenges)
- United States v. Barnes, 693 F.3d 261 (2d Cir.) (waiver of self-representation by conduct)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonableness review of sentence)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.) (restitution: reasonable approximation and methodology)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct.) (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
- Purdy v. United States, 208 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.) (standards for raising ineffectiveness on direct appeal)
- United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403 (2d Cir.) (district court actions in aid of appeal)
- United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.) (no requirement of ‘‘robotic incantations’’ of §3553(a))