United States v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 16 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-271S,10-CR-233S (1) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOSE MARTINEZ, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
DECISION AND ORDER
Presently before this Court is petitioner Jose Martinez's counseled[1]Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No 697.[2]) For the reasons discussed below, Martinez's motion is denied.
On August 12, 2010, a federal grand jury returned a six-count indictment against Martinez and four co-defendants. (Docket No. 1.) Only Count 1 is relevant here. It charged Martinez alone with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 500 grams or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (Id.)
After vigorous pretrial proceedings, Martinez and three of his co-defendants proceeded to trial on a six-count redacted indictment[4](Docket No. 529), beginning on May 12, 2014 (Docket No. 457). Relating to Count 1, the government presented evidence of a drug conspiracy involving Martinez and Quincy Turner (and others), most of which came by way of information learned through two proffer sessions that law enforcement conducted with Turner after his arrest.
Sergeant Investigator James Rensel and Lieutenant John W. Runkle, both of the Chautauqua County Sheriff's Department, interviewed Turner in April and May 2008. (Docket No. 553 at 4, 12, 91; Docket No. 554 at 4, 16; Docket No. 558 at 5, 83, 86.) Over the course of those two sessions, Turner told Rensel and Runkle that he (Turner) received kilogram quantities of cocaine from Martinez (also known as “Rico Suave” or “Noelle”), and then sold the cocaine to an individual named Quentin Leeper, who then sold the cocaine to others such as Koran Leeper, Millicent Leeper, and Ray Hodnett, for further distribution. (Docket No. 553 at 15, 17, 20, 46; Docket No. 554 at 32-34, 36-38, 101; Docket No. 557 at 123-128, 172, 179, 181, 182; Docket No. 558 at 51,52, 86, 141, 148; Docket No. 559 at 12, 37.) Although Turner most often purchased cocaine outright from Martinez, and Quentin Leeper most often purchased cocaine outright from Turner, there were occasions when Martinez would “front” cocaine to Turner and Turner would “front” cocaine to Quentin Leeper. (Docket No. 555 at 32; Docket No. 556 at 36, 40; Docket No. 557 at 137, 138.) There were also occasions when Quentin Leeper would further “front” drugs to his customers, including Koran Leeper. (Docket No. 557 at 126.) “Front” is a term used to describe providing drugs on consignment. (Id. at 184.)
Among other drug transactions, between late 2007 and April 2008, Turner sold Quentin Leeper three kilograms of cocaine, each of which Turner got from Martinez, either through outright purchase or by fronting. (Docket No. 553 at 15, 17, 19, 20, 24; Docket No. 554 at 32, 36, 101, 129; Docket No. 558 at 75.) On one occasion, Turner pooled money with Quentin Leeper to purchase a kilogram of cocaine from Martinez. (Docket No. 558 at 75.)
Quentin Leeper largely confirmed the testimony from Rensel and Runkle. Quentin Leeper testified that he and Turner grew up together and were very close. (Docket No. 555 at 10; Docket No. 556 at 28.) At one time, Quentin Leeper had a source of cocaine in Los Angeles, California, known as “Cool.” (Docket No. 555 at 21-30; Docket No. 556 at 35.) When “Cool” could no longer supply Quentin Leeper, Turner found him a new source. (Docket No. 555 at 31; Docket No. 556 at 40; Docket No. 557 at 129.) Once Turner found the new source, which turned out to be Martinez, Turner became Quentin Leeper's source of supply. (Docket No. 555 at 31, 32.) Turner told Quentin Leeper that his (Turner's) source was Martinez, referring to Martinez by his nickname “Rico Suave.” (Docket No. 555 at 93, 94; Docket No. 556 at 74; Docket No. 558 at 148; Docket No. 559 at 37.) Quentin Leeper told his cousin, Koran Leeper, that his (Quentin Leeper's) source was Turner. (Docket No. 557 at 133.) Koran Leeper and others also knew that Turner's source was Martinez, though Koran Leeper knew Martinez as “Rico Suave,” “O Boy,” or “Noelle.” (Docket No. 557 at 136, 189, 190, 196, 197.) Each nickname was associated with Martinez. (Docket No. 557 at 148, 149, 189; Docket No. 558 at 38; Docket No. 559 at 58.)
Brian Wilson, one of Quincy Turner's friends, also testified about Martinez serving as the source for Turner and Quentin Leeper. (Docket No. 557 at 5.) Wilson testified that he was present in March 2008 when Turner purchased cocaine from Martinez in the parking lot of a grocery store, which was consistent with Turner telling Rensel and Runkle that he and Martinez often met in parking lots to complete their drug transactions. (Docket No. 553 at 24; Docket No. 554 at 70; Docket No. 557 at 5-8, 73, 84.) Turner, Wilson, and Martinez met in the parking lot, at which time Turner retrieved a shoe box full of money from his car and drove away with Martinez, leaving Wilson behind. (Docket No. 557 at 9-11, 85, 86, 112, 113.) When Turner came back, he had two packages of what Wilson recognized to be cocaine. (Id. at 11-14, 87, 88, 96, 98.) The timing of this transaction corresponds to Quentin Leeper's testimony that Turner sold him a kilogram of cocaine in March 2008 for $30,000. (Docket No. 555, at 38, 39, 45, 46; Docket No. 559 at 33.) Koran Leeper, Quentin Leeper's cousin, corroborated this testimony, testifying that Quentin Leeper purchased a kilogram of cocaine from Turner in March 2008. (Docket No. 557 at 227.) According to Wilson, Turner told him that everyone in Jamestown, N.Y., got their drugs from Martinez. (Id. at 15, 99, 110, 111.)
The nine-week trial concluded on July 11, 2014. (Docket No. 526.) Upon the close of the government's proof, this Court denied Martinez's Rule 29 motion. (Docket Nos. 517, 518.) The jury subsequently found Martinez guilty of Count 1 and acquitted him and his co-defendants of Counts 2-6. (Docket No. 530.)
Following the verdict, Martinez timely filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, which this Court denied on September 25, 2015. See United States v. Martinez, No. 10-CR-233S (1), 2015 WL 5673115 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2015). Involved sentencing proceedings then ensued, with this Court ultimately sentencing Martinez on August 24, 2016, to, inter alia, a term of life imprisonment. (Docket Nos. 628, 630.)
Martinez then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed his conviction and sentence on April 25, 2019. See United States v. Martinez, 769 F. App'x. 12 (2d Cir. 2019). In its summary order, the Second Circuit rejected Martinez's arguments that (1) his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) this Court erred by denying his request to provide the jury with a buyerseller instruction; (3) this Court erred in denying his lawyer's objections with the proviso that he could cross-examine the government's witnesses; (4) the government's cumulative errors required reversal; and (5) this Court violated his constitutional rights by considering acquitted conduct in imposing sentence. See id. at *13. Instead, the Second Circuit found that the trial evidence was sufficient to support Martinez's conviction; that there was no evidentiary basis for Martinez's buyer-seller theory of defense; that this Court's explanatory comments regarding cross examination did not deny Martinez a fair trial; that the alleged errors by the government-late disclosure of documents; inadequate preparation of witnesses; inappropriate trial behavior-did not deny Martinez a fair trial; and that this Court did not err by considering acquitted conduct[5] at sentencing. See id. at *14-17.
On February 24, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied Martinez's petition for writ of certiorari. See Martinez v. United States, 140 S.Ct. 1128 (Mem), 206 L.Ed.2d 191 (2020).
On February 17, 2021, Martinez timely filed the instant § 2255 petition,[6] which the government opposes. (Docket Nos. 697, 704.) Martinez thereafter filed a number of pro se submissions and motions for relief unrelated to his § 2255 petition, the last of which were denied on October 19, 2022. (See, e.g., Docket Nos. 708 (), 728 (denying compassionate-release related motions), 735 (denying motion for compassionate release), 742 (denying various counsel-related motions). Martinez's motion is fully briefed, and this Court finds oral argument unnecessary.
Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 2255 allows federal prisoners to challenge the legality of their sentences. It provides, in pertinent part, that:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (a).
Importantly a § 2255 motion is not a substitute for an appeal. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) () (quoting Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 354, 114 S.Ct. 2291, 2300, 129 L.Ed.2d 277 (1994)). Relief under § 2255 is therefore narrowly limited, with collateral attack on a final criminal judgment available “only for a constitutional error, a lack of jurisdiction in...
To continue reading
Request your trial