Rodriguez v. United States

• Decision Date: 28 September 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13-2417 (MCA)
• Parties: ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 13-2417 (MCA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

September 28, 2016

OPINION

ARLEO, United States District Judge

:

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter has been opened to the Court by Antonio Rodriguez' ("Petitioner" or "Rodriguez") filing of a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, upon review of all submissions, this matter is decided without oral argument, and for the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the motion and deny a certificate of appealability.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In June of 2010, law enforcement officials in Linden, New Jersey observed an individual removing an unidentified package from a 2007 Jeep Cherokee during the course of a suspicious encounter with other individuals. Officials later seized $999,000 in cash from the tractor trailer driven by the first individual. Two weeks later, officers conducting surveillance of a different tractor trailer observed Petitioner Rodriguez and a co-conspirator, Luis Mendez-Rivera, arrive at a hotel in South Plainfield, New Jersey in the same jeep they had previously observed. Rodriguez and Mendez-Rivera entered the hotel, as did the driver of the tractor trailer, who was later identified as Javier Ramirez. The three men drove together in the jeep to two separate warehouses, then returned to the hotel parking lot. There, the officers found approximately 14.6 kilograms of cocaine and 15.8 kilograms of heroin in a hidden compartment in Ramirez's tractor trailer. The subsequent investigation revealed that Rodriguez had traveled outside of New Jersey to coordinate narcotics activities, and had directed the delivery of the $999,000 in cash two weeks earlier.¹

On August 2, 2010, the undersigned, then a United States Magistrate Judge, authorized a one-count criminal complaint charging Rodriguez, Mendez-Rivera, and Ramirez with a drug trafficking conspiracy. On August 16, 2010, Petitioner was arrested pursuant to the federal complaint and had an initial appearance, at which he was detained pending further proceedings. On August 18, 2010, Steven D. Altman, Esq., retained counsel, entered his appearance on behalf of Petitioner.

On December 14, 2010, a federal grand jury sitting in Newark, New Jersey returned a two-count Indictment against Petitioner, Mendez-Rivera, and Ramirez. Count One charged that on or about July 1, 2010, Petitioner and his co-defendants conspired to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 1 kilogram or more of heroin, contrary to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(A), and in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Count Two charged that on or about July 1, 2010, Petitioner and his co-defendants possessed with the intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 1 kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a) and (b)(1)(A). Petitioner was arraigned on January 18, 2011, and entered a not guilty plea.

After being informed that the parties reached a plea agreement, the Honorable Faith S. Hochberg, U.S. District Judge, referred the matter to the Honorable Patty Schwartz, U.S. Magistrate Judge, for a guilty plea hearing. (April 6, 2011 Transcript, attached as Ex. B to Answer.) It appears from the transcript of the hearing that Petitioner and his codefendant had initially decided to decline the plea deals offered by the government. (Id. at 2:22-3:1.) After swearing in the Court's Spanish interpreter (id. at 2:6-9), Judge Schwartz conducted a status conference for both Petitioner and his codefendant, Mendez-Rivera. At the status conference, Petitioner's counsel advised Judge Schwartz that just this past Monday, [he] received the plea agreement that is more favorable to Petitioner, which he presented to Petitioner on April 5, 2011. (See id. at 5-6.)

The following exchange occurred between the Court and Petitioner's counsel, as he sought to explain why the plea would not being going forward at that time:

MR. ALTMAN: Now admittedly, this has been a very difficult case from my perspective. And I think it's again difficult from [the perspective of the Prosecutor]. You know typically in these cases - it starts on Route 287 in South Plainfield with these two Gentlemen and Stephen Turtano's client, who's scheduled to appear before you tomorrow, are arrested in a tractor trailer that Mr. Turano's client was driving. There was a 29 kilos of drugs a combination of coke and heroin. That's all I know about the case. And we've been trying to work out a plea for all of these months. And the plea has changed. Sometimes month-to-month, sometimes from week to week, sometimes from day-to-day.

Most recently this past Monday, I received a plea agreement that is more favorable to my client than the other ones. Tried to talk to my client about it. My client claims we have a language barrier. I'm not going to start defending that right now.

I presented it to him yesterday. I went to see him. Spent time with him. He now wants to talk to you and say to you that he hasn't had enough time to read the documents. He hasn't had enough time to have them interpreted. He hasn't had enough time to consider them. He is being pressured. That's his right. Hehas to worry about himself. He is the defendant who could do from anywhere from 10 to life in terms of the statute. Sometimes we can get annoyed at it, we can get frustrated by it, but we're not sitting where he is. That's one issue though.

. . . .

The second issue that's been addressed is my client is apparently very unhappy with me. Claiming that I don't give him enough time, and I don't speak to him in Spanish, and I don't speak Spanish. Sometimes I go up there and I think I am doing fine with him, sometimes I bring Mr. Gonzalez and we see all of them together. You probably don't know it, but you got to get special dispensation in the Essex County Correctional facility for two lawyers to see co-defendants. And at times I've been with him, as early as last week, where he brought another inmate to interpret. I'm trying the best I can. He's unhappy. He wants to tell you that, and I'll have to deal with that by the appropriate application. So we don't end up in post-conviction situations later on.

THE COURT: Hhmm-hmm.

MR. ALTMAN: And I'll deal with the consequences of that in terms of my representation.

But he would like, if you would permit him to, at least address you and tell you nothing about the case, but his dissatisfaction with me and his dissatisfaction with the feeling he's getting that he's being forced into going to trial.

THE COURT: Well, would it be of any help to allow you, with the assistance of the court's interpreter, to speak with him with the documents now? We're all here. If that would be helpful, I'm happy to give you the opportunity, together with your client, to review the documents and discuss them in more detail.

I would imagine, and if I'm wrong you'll - I'm sure you will correct me, that you did spend time reviewing the documents with your client, and otherwise you wouldn't have indicated an interest in representing on his behalf that he wanted to proceed at a Rule 11 hearing today. So my guess is that you have probably done it. Am I correct?

MR. ALTMAN: I've done it a number of time. I've spoke to the family members who speak to him almost daily, the documents - so that they could read them to him in Spanish.

So I don't know, I've left copies of the documents with him, telling him to speak to someone in the facility who speaks English and Spanish, and I have met some of them who are adept at the two different languages, and very bright, and understanding what is going on. So I don't know what more I can do.

THE COURT: Do you want to ask him privately with the interpreter if he would like to spend a few minutes or as much time as he'd like right now, looking at the documents with the assistance of the interpreter, and make a decision as to whether he wants to accept the plea offer or not? We have a highly qualified interpreter her today on a topic that has apparently already been -

MR. ALTMAN: I welcome the opportunity.

THE COURT: Would you talk -- I would prefer you to raise this with him directly before he says anything on the open record.

MR. ALTMAN: May I could confer a moment?

THE COURT: Yes. Sure. With the assistance of the interpreter.

MR. ALTMAN: Your Honor - -

THE COURT: Yes, Sir.

MR. ALTMAN: -- my client, through the interpreter, has advised me that I apparently misunderstood --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ALTMAN: -- his dissatisfaction with me.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ALTMAN: And that his concern is that I gave him a pleas agreement, today's Wednesday, Monday, and today, Wednesday -

THE COURT: It is.

MR. ALTMAN: Okay. Monday. And I went over it with him. He has a wife that he likes to discuss these things with. And he hasn't had sufficient opportunity to discuss the most recent plea with his wife.

THE COURT: Okay.

The Court then explained to the parties that "the decision as to whether the plea remains open is wholly vested with the Government" and the Court could not "make a party accept a plea or keep one open or tender one." (Id. at 10:15-23.) In response, the Government indicated that plea agreements had been outstanding for "months and months and months," and just a few days prior to the hearing, the Government offered its most favorable plea agreement, allowing thedefendants the ability to argue for a minor role adjustment at sentencing. (Id. at 11-12.) If the plea agreements were not entered immediately, however, the Government stated at the status conference that it would withdraw them and proceed to trial on more severe charges. (Id. at 13:5-17.)

In response to Petitioner's concerns and the potential expiration of the plea agreement, Judge Schwartz took a recess of more than an hour to allow both Petitioner and Mendez-Rivera an opportunity to review their respective plea agreements with their c...