United States v. Viera
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6318
10th Cir.2012Background
- Viera pled guilty on April 22, 2009 to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and related charges under a plea agreement.
- The plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal or collateral attack, including § 2255 challenges.
- Viera was sentenced on December 8, 2009 to 324 months' imprisonment.
- On October 29, 2010, Viera filed a pro se § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance claims; four claims were raised.
- District court dismissed three claims for lack of prejudice and denied relief on the fourth (appeal issue) due to the waiver; COA was granted for the appeal issue.
- This appeal concerns whether the waiver bars the § 2255 appeal-ineffectiveness claim and the related requests for COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver covers the § 2255 appeal claim | Viera argues waiver should not bar the claim | USA argues waiver encompasses the ineffective-assistance claim | Waiver applies; appeal issue falls within waiver's scope |
| Whether waiver is knowing and voluntary | Plea/waiver involuntary due to deportation and RDAP promises | Waiver was knowingly and voluntarily agreed | Waiver knowingly and voluntarily entered; no COA on voluntariness issue |
| Whether enforcing the waiver would cause miscarriage of justice | Enforcing waiver would be miscarriage of justice due to ineffective assistance | No miscarriage; waiver remains valid | Enforcement would not cause miscarriage of justice; waiver upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (test for whether waiver of postconviction rights is valid and applicable to § 2255)
- United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009) (waiver of appellate rights may cover § 2255 motions)
- United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2001) (waiver may not bar claims challenging plea validity; case-by-case analysis)
- United States v. Garrett, 402 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2005) (evidentiary hearing when counsel allegedly failed to file a requested appeal under waiver)
- United States v. Siedlik, 231 F.3d 744 (10th Cir. 2000) (standard for allowing withdrawal of plea under fair and just reason)
- United States v. Hamilton, 510 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2007) (prejudice required for erroneous sentencing predictions where Rule 11 colloquy adequate)