Morales subsequently filed the instant habeas petition, in which he argued that the off-the-record sentencing offer violated his Sixth and Fifth Amendment rights. The Second Circuit affirmed Morales’s sentence, finding that the sentencing judge had committed harmless error in erroneously calculating Morales’s mandatory minimum. Defense counsel failed, however, to argue that the in camera sentencing offer violated Morales’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights. Morales was represented by the same attorney on his direct appeal, in which he raised several arguments with respect to the propriety of his sentence. Ultimately, Morales received a 28-year sentence, three years higher than the sentence offered during the in camera session.
Colloquy in court pro#
This will be a straight out sentencing.” The proceedings were ultimately adjourned to a later date, by which time Morales had moved pro se for the appointment of new counsel due in part to his concern regarding defense counsel’s handling of the off-the record discussions. When he was provided with an opportunity to speak, however, Morales himself raised the issue of the off-the-record discussions, stating “I don’t know what’s going on right now.” The judge explained that “hatever we discussed off the record is no longer applicable. Defense counsel failed to object to the in camera proceedings or to make a contemporaneous record of what had happened. When the judge returned to the bench, the defense attorney communicated that Morales had rejected the offer.
Neither Morales nor the court reporter were present.Īt the end of the in camera colloquy, the judge offered to impose a 25-year sentence, making clear that the offer was for “today only.” The defense attorney then left the robing room to transmit this offer to Morales. In response to the dispute, the judge called a recess and gathered the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the probation officer in his robing room to discuss the scheduling issue. During Morales’s sentencing hearing, a scheduling dispute arose between the parties. On January 7, 2008, Morales pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 grams or more of heroin. Although the Circuit chose to decide this matter via non-precedential summary order, this represents the rare case where ineffective assistance of appellate counsel excused a habeas petitioner’s procedural default. United States, 15-243-cv (Pooler, Parker, Livingston), the Second Circuit granted habeas relief to petitioner Jorge Luis Morales on the grounds that it was ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney not to raise a Fifth Amendment challenge to the lower court’s (Nevas, J.) decision to conduct in camera sentencing discussions outside of Morales’s presence. The checker found no problems in this document.In Morales v. Acrobat Accessibility Report Accessibility Report Filename: best_interpreter.pdf Report created by: Organization:
0 kommentar(er)
