United States v. Lazo
2:19-cr-00033
S.D. Tex.Dec 8, 2020Background
- Investigation uncovered interconnected methamphetamine/heroin supply networks in Corpus Christi; Movant (Dwayne Lazo) was a downstream purchaser from a large-scale supplier.
- Movant arrested May 7, 2018; officers found a scale, multiple drug packets including 11.9 g of d‑methamphetamine at 98% purity, other drugs, and $1,537; Movant signed a Stipulation of Fact admitting intent to distribute.
- Cooperating defendants corroborated Movant bought kilogram quantities and were supplied repeatedly; PSR estimated at least 4.5 kg supplied to Movant.
- Charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >50 g methamphetamine (Count 1) and possession >5 g (Count 2); pled guilty to Count 1 before a magistrate under a written plea agreement that waived appeals/collateral attack except for ineffective-assistance claims.
- Sentenced to 156 months (downward variance from Guidelines 262–327 months); did not appeal. Movant filed a timely §2255 motion (May 4, 2020) alleging multiple ineffective-assistance claims and that his plea was involuntary; he also sought an evidentiary hearing and compassionate release to care for his ill father.
- Court granted Government’s motion for judgment on the record: denied the §2255 motion, denied an evidentiary hearing, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied compassionate release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Lazo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Counsel failed to investigate exculpatory evidence | Claims are vague, speculative, and lack specifics showing what investigation would have produced or witnesses available | Counsel failed to investigate and would have shown Lazo was a recreational user, not a dealer | Denied — Lazo failed to identify specific evidence/witnesses or show prejudice; stipulation and cooperators’ statements contradict assertion |
| 2) Counsel failed to file pretrial motions (Brady, quash, speedy trial) | Guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictional pretrial claims; only ineffective-assistance claims that render the plea involuntary survive | Counsel’s omissions deprived Lazo of pretrial challenges and discovery | Denied — plea waived these claims; Lazo did not show plea involuntariness tied to these failures |
| 3) Counsel failed to move to suppress/challenge government’s evidence/testing | Same waiver argument plus lack of supporting factual allegations | Evidence was unreliable; testing/adverse testing would have prevented conviction | Denied — waived by guilty plea; Lazo did not identify exculpatory evidence or prove prejudice |
| 4) Guilty plea involuntary due to ineffective assistance | Plea colloquy and signed plea agreement show plea was knowing and voluntary | Plea was induced by faulty advice; Lazo would not have pled guilty otherwise | Denied — Rule 11 colloquy and plea agreement establish voluntariness; allegations are vague/conclusory and do not show reasonable probability of different outcome |
| 5) Motion for compassionate release to care for ill father | Extraordinary and compelling reasons not shown; caring for an aging/sick parent is not qualifying under U.S.S.G. §1B1.13 | Father has Alzheimer’s and needs care; Lazo’s rehabilitation and conduct support release to home confinement | Denied — family‑care circumstances are not qualifying grounds; courts routinely reject caregiving as extraordinary; 3553(a) factors and danger to community weighed against release |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for plea‑stage ineffective‑assistance claims)
- United States v. Placente, 81 F.3d 555 (grounds for relief under §2255)
- United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367 (§2255 relief reserved for constitutional transgressions/narrow injuries)
- United States v. Green, 882 F.2d 999 (failure‑to‑investigate claims require specificity about what investigation would have shown)
- United States v. Fields, 761 F.3d 443 (uncalled witnesses claims are disfavored; must identify witness and expected testimony)
- Bonvillan v. Blackburn, 780 F.2d 1248 (signed plea agreement carries substantial evidentiary weight regarding voluntariness)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA requires overview and general assessment of petition’s merits)