United States v. Morales
| Decision Date | 17 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 12-cr-322-9 (RJS) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CATHERINE MORALES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Catherine Morales #70574-066 FCI ALICEVILLE FEDERAL CORRECTIONS
The Court is in receipt of the attached letter from Catherine Morales, currently incarcerated and proceeding pro se renewing her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A). (See Doc. Nos. 682, 683.) The Court has reviewed the motion and determined that it should not be summarily denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Clerk of Court shall electronically notify the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York that this Order has been issued. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the government shall file a response to Morales's motion for compassionate release - addressing, among any other issues the government sees fit, whether Morales has comported with the procedural requirements of section 3582(c)(1)(A) (see Doc. No. 683 at 2 n.1) - no later than May 17, 2023.
SO ORDERED.
In Re USA v. CATHERINE MORALES, Crim. No. S10 12 Cr 322 (RJS)
Dear Clerk, Please be advised that the enclosed is a request for reduction of sentence, in the above case, and further that Ms. Morales at the time for preparation of this motion was not in receipt of The Warden's denial of her request for compassionate release. Ms. Morales has now exhausted her remedies,[1] and resubmits the enclosed request respectfully praying that this Honorable Court Grant relief in the form of a sentencing reduction.
I, Catearine Morales, swears under the penalty and 28 USC § 1746, that the foregoing enclosed and ail of the above is true and correct to the best of her knowledge and belief.
The Defendant, Catherine Morales, Pro Se, respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant his request for compassionate release. Ms. Morales makes the instant request due the extraordinary and compelling facts surrounding her case and the totality of the circumstances of her incarceration post-conviction.
Beginning in 2008, Catherine Morales was the girlfriend of the leader of a drug trafficking organization (the “DTO”) operating in the Hunts Point area of the Bronx, New York. (PSR ¶ 23). The DTO was run by Adony Nina, Ms. Morales's boyfriend and by Candido Antomattei, Morales s brother. (PSR ¶¶ 24, 27). Members of the DTO distributed crack cocaine and heroin, among other drugs, in the vicinity of Longwood Avenue and Beck, Kelly, and Fox Streets, and East 163rd Street and Simpson Street. (PSR ¶ 23). Several members of the DTO also carried firearms during and in relation to their drug trafficking activities, some of which were brandished and discharged. (PSR ¶ 23). Catherine Morales participated in the heroin operation for the DTO in the vicinity of East 163rd and Simpson Street. (PSR ¶ 27). Adony Nina supplied Morales with heroin, which she both distributed herself and had distributed by several workers whom she supervised. (PSR ¶ 27). In and around 2011, Adony Nina, and Candido Antomattei engaged in a several weeks long dispute over drug territoiy with other individuals selling narcotics within the DTO's territory at East 163rd Street and Simpson Street. (PSR ¶ 31). In particular, Nina, and Antomattei had a dispute with Bobby Morales, who was selling drugs in the DTO's territory. (PSR ¶ 31). In June 2011, Nina, and Antomattei confronted Bobby Morales on several occasions. (PSR ¶ 31). On June 28, 2011, the escalating disputes led to a verbal and physical confrontation between Catherine Morales, on the one hand, and Stacey Gonzalez (Bobby Morales's girlfriend) and Aisha and Desiree Morales (his sisters), on the other hand. (PSR ¶ 32). Ms. Morales was beaten severely by Ms. Gonzalez and her friends, moreover, Ms. Morales' life was also threatened.
Following the altercation, Catherine Morales left the vicinity of Simpson Street, where the altercation had occurred. (PSR ¶ 32). Approximately one hour later, at around 4:00 p.m., Catherine Morales and Adony Nina returned to the block. (PSR ¶ 32). Catherine Morales and Nina then entered 940 Simpson Street, where Nina handed Catherine Morales a gun and said, in sum and substance, “Am I going to have to take care of this, or will you do it?” (PSR ¶ 32). Morales agreed to do it. (PSR ¶ 32). Catherine Morales and Adony Nina then walked to the vicinity of 1018 East 163rd Street, where the three women were standing with others in front of the building. (PSR ¶ 33). At the behest of her boyfriend, Catherine Morales fired several shots at the women. (PSR ¶ 33). One of the shots struck Aisha Morales in the head. (PSR ¶ 33). Aisha Morales was subsequently pronounced dead at a local hospital. (PSR ¶ 33). She was 21 years old. (PSR ¶ 33). After the murder, officers of the New York City Police Department sought Catherine Morales's arrest, but she became a fugitive and remained so for several years. (PSR ¶ 34). During her time in hiding, Morales remained in touch with members of the DTO; indeed, a video recovered from Adony Nina's cellphone on March 24,2012, proved that Nina and Morales had continued engaging in an intimate relationship while Morales was a fugitive. (PSR ¶ 34).
Superseding Indictment S10 12 Cr. 322 (RJS) (the “S10 Indictment”) was unsealed on April 9, 2014, charging Catherine Morales with: (i) conspiracy to distribute one kilogram and more of heroin and 280 grams and more of cocaine base, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846 and 841(b)(1)(A) [Count One]; (ii) possessing firearms which were brandished and discharged, in connection with the narcotics conspiracy charged in Count One, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii) and (iii) [Count Two]; (iii) killing Aisha Morales while engaged in the narcotics conspiracy charged in Count One, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 848(e)(1)(A) [Count Three]; and (iv) possessing a firearm in relation to the narcotics trafficking crime charged in Count One and with causing the death of Aisha Morales in the course of that narcotics trafficking crime, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(j) [Count Four], (A. 13; Ex. B). Morales thus faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years on Count One, 10 years on Count Two, 20 years' on Count Three, and 25 years on Count Four, and faced a total mandatory minimum sentence of 55 years' imprisonment.
Ms. Morales' counsel was instrumental in the pre-trial plea negotiations which went on for several months. Ms. Morales first plea of 25-27 years imprisonment was discussed by counsel not only with Ms. Morales but also with Ms. Morales family. (See Exh.2). Ms. Morales counsel advised Ms. Morales and her family that she should not go to trial because there was no way he could convince a jury she was innocent based on the government's evidence against her. Ms. Morales and her family agreed that the only option Ms. Morales had was to plead guilty and conveyed this sentiment to her attorney. At no time after this decision- which was prior to November 4, 2014,- did Ms. Morales want to go to trial or believe that going to trial was in her best interest.
As the record reflects Ms. Morales was first offered a plea of 25-27 years; 5-7 years over the "plea deal" counsel advised her to hold out for and further advised her that he could deliver. This 25-27 year plea was offered at the time Ms. Morales was ad- vised by counsel- in which her and her family agreed- that due to the government's evidence she should not go to trial because she would be found guilty and suffer a harsher punishment. (See Exh.2).
Ms. Morales did not accept the 25-27 year plea because counsel advised her not to accept it because he could get a better deal. Ms. Morales had no reason to believe that even if counsel was not successful she would be offered 2 later pleas with a significantly harsher penalty that exposed her to spending the rest of her life in prison. Had Ms. Morales been advised that if counsel was not successful the government could rescind or fail to reopen their plea offer of 2527 years; the Ms. Morales would have accepted the government's plea of 25-27 years and not risk any possibility of spending the rest of her life in prison.
After the Ms. Morales filed a Section 2255 motion the Government contacted Mr. Neufeld in early November 2018 regarding the possibility of obtaining an affidavit from him responding to claims raised by Ms. Morales in her pending habeas petition (the “Petition”). In response, Mr. Neufeld confirmed that Ms. Morales was provided with two different plea agreements, and that he advised Ms. Morales as to which of those plea agreements she should accept. Mr. Neufeld then expressed his view that, in hindsight, he had given Ms. Morales “bad advice.” In a subsequent e-mail, Mr. Neufeld clarified the terms of one of the two plea agreements offered to Ms. Morales. Ultimately, the Government did not seek an affidavit from Mr. Neufeld as part of its response to the Petition.
The Defendant, Catherine Morales, Pro Se, can only obtain relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) if the court finds “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable,” that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The statute also provides-as it did before the passage of the First Step Act- that any reduction must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial