Sandoval-Flores v. United States
| Decision Date | 16 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 2:16-cv-719-TC,Associated Criminal Case 2:99-cr-109-TC |
| Parties | JULIAN SANDOVAL-FLORES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Julian Sandoval-Flores has filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his 2001 conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which punishes “any person who during and in relation to any crime of violence uses or carries a firearm.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The underlying predicate crime for his § 924(c) conviction (the “crime of violence”) was attempted murder. He contends that the court relied on an unconstitutional statutory provision-the “residual clause” in § 924(c)(3)(B)-to find that attempted murder was a “crime of violence,” and, accordingly, his conviction is constitutionally invalid. The Government raises numerous points, including the argument that the “elements clause” in § 924(c)(3)(A) provides an alternative and valid basis for his conviction. For the reasons set forth below, the court agrees with the Government and denies the Motion.
In 2000, a federal grand jury charged Mr. Sandoval-Flores with four counts of attempted murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1114(3), four counts of using a firearm during and in relation to the attempted murders, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c), and one count of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). (Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 69 in 2:99-cr-109-TC (D. Utah).) The attempted murder counts alleged that Mr. Sandoval-Flores “attempt[ed] to kill with malice aforethought,” FBI Special Agent Travis Thiede, as well as law enforcement officers assisting Special Agent Thiede.
On July 19, 2000, he pleaded guilty to two of the attempted murder charges, the 924(c) charge relating to the attempted murder of Utah Department of Corrections Officer Larry Benzon, and the charge of illegal alien in possession of a firearm. (Statement in Advance of Plea, ECF No. 174 in 2:99-cr-109-TC.) During the plea proceedings, he admitted that he opened fire on four members of the FBI Violent Crimes Task Force when they were attempting to execute an arrest warrant for a bank robbery suspect at a Salt Lake City residence. Mr. Sandoval-Flores, who was protecting drugs and cash stored at the house, also admitted that he attempted to kill both Special Agent Thiede and Officer Benzon. He shot Officer Benzon in the chest and in the head, but Officer Benzon's protective gear prevented serious physical injury. In his plea agreement, Mr. Sandoval-Flores “knowingly, voluntarily and expressly waive[d] his right to challenge [his] conviction and/or sentence, and the manner in which the sentence is determined, in any collateral review motion, writ or other procedure, including but not limited to a motion brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255[.]” (Id. at 5, ¶ 11.B.)
In 2001, the court sentenced him to 450 months of imprisonment (later reduced to 385 months under 18 U.S.C. § 3582). He did not appeal his sentence or conviction. He did, however, file two unsuccessful § 2255 petitions in 2002 and 2003.
After the Supreme Court invalidated § 924(c)'s residual clause in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), he filed the § 2255 motion now before the court. In February 2020, the Tenth Circuit issued a certificate of appealability (COA) permitting him to file the successive petition, because he bases his claim on Davis, which announced “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). The appellate court cautioned, however, that its approval did not “consider the existence or applicability of any plea-agreement waiver that may have been executed.” (Feb. 6, 2020 Order of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals at 2, n.1 (Case No. 16-4064), ECF No. 4.) The Government, noting that caveat, now urges dismissal based on Mr. Sandoval-Flores's plea agreement waiver.
In October, the court heard argument from the parties on that issue as well as the Government's other grounds for dismissal. As explained below, the court concludes that waiver precludes Mr. Sandoval-Flores's § 2255 motion. Nevertheless, given some uncertainty in Tenth Circuit law, the court addresses the remaining points raised by the Government and holds in the alternative that any error that may have occurred was harmless because attempted murder is a crime of violence under § 924(c)'s elements clause. Accordingly, Mr. Sandoval-Flores is not entitled to habeas relief.
The United States opposes Mr. Sandoval-Flores's motion on numerous grounds, asserting that: (1) Mr. Sandoval-Flores waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence and conviction (2) he has not satisfied his burden under § 2255(h)'s gatekeeping requirement to show that the court relied on the unconstitutional residual clause; (3) even if the court relied on the residual clause, the error was harmless because attempted murder is a crime of violence under the alternative and still-valid elements clause in § 924(c)(3)(A) (defining “crime of violence”); and (4) he procedurally defaulted his claim.
The United States contends that Mr. Sandoval-Flores procedurally defaulted his claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998) (failure to appeal issue results in procedural default). Although the United States is correct, Mr. Sandoval-Flores has overcome that default by showing cause and actual prejudice. See, e.g., Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003) ().
Cause exists when a claim “‘is so novel that its legal basis [wa]s not reasonably available to counsel' at the time of the direct appeal.” United States v. Snyder, 871 F.3d 1122, 1127 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16 (1984)). If the argument on appeal would require the Supreme Court to explicitly overrule its precedent, the claim is novel. Id. In particular, if the defendant's claim is based on a Supreme Court decision announcing “‘a constitutional principle that had not been previously recognized but which is held to have retroactive application,'” such as occurred in United States v. Johnson, 578 U.S. 120 (2016), and its progeny (including Davis), he has established novelty. Id. (quoting Reed, 468 U.S. at 17). The Davis decision announced just such a principle when it invalidated the residual clause eighteen years after the court sentenced Mr. Sandoval-Flores. Accordingly, a claim based on Davis was not reasonably available in 2001. See id. () (quoting United States v. Redrick, 841 F.3d 478, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2016)).
As for actual prejudice, Mr. Sandoval-Flores has shown that the claimed error “is an ‘error of constitutional dimensions' that worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage.'” Id. at 1128 (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170 (1982)). “A sentence that is not authorized by law is certainly an ‘actual and substantial disadvantage' of ‘constitutional dimensions.'” Id. (quoting Frady, 456 U.S. at 170). If the court erred by basing Mr. Sandoval-Flores's conviction and sentence on the unconstitutional residual clause, he most certainly suffered prejudice by being convicted for an act that the statute unconstitutionally criminalized.
Mr. Sandoval-Flores's procedural default is excused.
The United States, noting that the COA does not preclude enforcement of the plea agreement waiver, contends that Mr. Sandoval-Flores waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence in a § 2255 motion. The court must enforce a plea agreement waiver if (i) the issue raised in the collateral attack falls within the scope of the waiver, (ii) the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and (iii) enforcement of the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc); United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1183 (10th Cir. 2001).
Mr. Sandoval-Flores, who bears the burden here,[1] asserts that enforcing his waiver would be a miscarriage of justice. Waiver occurs in only one of four situations: “[1] where the district court relied on an impermissible factor such as race, [2] where ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the waiver renders the waiver invalid, [3] where the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, or [4] where the waiver is otherwise unlawful,” meaning “the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings,” as the United States Supreme Court applied that test in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (). Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 (cleaned up).
Mr Sandoval-Flores focuses on the “otherwise unlawful” exception. When the court analyzes a waiver under that exception, the court does not look at whether the sentence was unlawful but rather asks “whether the waiver itself is unlawful because of some procedural error or because no waiver is possible.” United States v. Sandoval, 477 F.3d 1204, 1208 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Sandoval-Flores argues that no waiver is possible because Davis invalidated his conviction: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial