United States v. Prieto
712 F. App'x 763
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2012 police stopped a car driven by Daniel Prieto; officers observed drug paraphernalia and found two handguns—one between passenger seat and frame, one on driver-side floorboard beneath the steering wheel. Prieto was arrested for being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
- At trial the principal contested issue was whether Prieto knowingly possessed the driver-side gun; government relied on officer testimony (Prieto’s delayed compliance and hands sliding down the wheel), jailhouse audio in which Prieto said the gun was “in plain view,” and physical evidence indicating he was the primary driver.
- Prieto’s mother testified she owned the guns, but her credibility was impeached extensively (changed statements, lies to agents, inconsistent descriptions, and coordinated testimony).
- At trial the court gave a Curtis advisement (Colorado precedent) about impeachment by prior convictions; the court later acknowledged the advisement was overbroad and incorrect under Federal Rule of Evidence 609 because not all nine prior convictions would have been admissible. Trial counsel did not object to the advisement.
- Prieto did not testify at trial; he later filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to the Curtis advisement and failure to review jailhouse calls. The district court granted relief on an unrelated Johnson sentencing claim (reducing sentence) but denied the ineffective-assistance claims. Prieto appealed and obtained a COA on two ineffective-assistance issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prieto) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to object to the overbroad Curtis advisement prejudiced Prieto by deterring him from testifying | Prieto would have testified he did not know about the gun and would have used photos to show seat position to explain concealment; absence of testimony deprived him of a viable defense | Even if counsel erred, Prieto cannot show a reasonable probability of a different outcome given strong government evidence and that several prior convictions could still be used to impeach him | No prejudice; district court affirmed — no reasonable probability of a different result |
| Whether counsel’s failure to review and act on jailhouse-call recordings prejudiced Prieto | Better review could have led to excluding or contextualizing the audio or produced witnesses to rebut their impact | Prieto offered no showing the calls would have been inadmissible or identified witnesses/evidence that would have meaningfully reduced their impact; claim speculative and time-barred as asserted later | No prejudice; district court affirmed — Prieto failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) (discusses standards for certificate of appealability and claims review)
- United States v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106 (4th Cir. 1992) (discussed by parties on constructive possession; court distinguished it)
- United States v. Viera, 674 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)
- Moore v. Gibson, 195 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 1999) (ineffective-assistance claims are mixed questions of law and fact)
- Ryder ex rel. Ryder v. Warrior, 810 F.3d 724 (10th Cir. 2016) (articulation of Strickland prejudice standard)