United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
J. Lodge, United States District Judge
before the Court in the above-entitled matter is
Petitioner's § 2255 Motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence. (CV Dkt. 1) (CR Dkt. 126.) In response, the
Government has filed a Motion to Dismiss to which Petitioner
has replied. (CV Dkt. 5, 7.) The matter is ripe for the
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Indictment in this case charged the Petitioner Alfonso
Sanchez-Elorza with Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled
Substance, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled
Substance, and Deported Alien Found in the United States. (CR
December 13, 2011, Petitioner Alfonso Sanchez-Elorza plead
guilty to the charge of Deported Alien Found in the United
States and elected to proceed to trial on the remaining
charges in the Indictment. (CR Dkt. 27, 58.) The trial began
on December 13, 2011 and concluded on December 15, 2011 when
the Jury returned a verdict of guilty on both of the
remaining counts. (CR Dkt. 64, 68.) On March 12, 2012, this
Court sentenced Mr. Sanchez-Elorza to a total of 176 months
incarceration to be followed by a term of supervised release.
(CR Dkt. 83, 86.) A Notice of Appeal was filed. (CR Dkt. 87.)
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the final judgment and,
on May 30, 2013, issued its mandate. (CR Dkt. 123,
November 12, 2013, Petitioner timely filed the instant §
2255 Motion. (CR Dkt. 126) (CV Dkt. 1.) The Government
responded by filing its Motion to Dismiss on February 13,
2014. (CV Dkt. 5.) The Court finds as follows.
2255 permits a federal prisoner in custody under sentence to
move the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set
aside, or correct the sentence on the grounds 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 ....
§ 2255(a); see also Hill v. United States, 368
U.S. 424, 426-27 (1962) (articulating the four grounds upon
which § 2255 relief can be claimed).
is a distinction between constitutional and jurisdictional
errors and errors of law or fact. Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 593
(2d ed. 1982). If the alleged error is one of law or fact,
then § 2255 does not provide a basis for collateral
attack “unless the claimed error constituted ‘a
fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete
miscarriage of justice.'” United States v.
Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979) (citing
Hill, 368 U.S. at 428). Section 2255 is not a
substitute for appeal. Id. at 184. If the matter has
been decided adversely to the defendant on direct appeal, the
matter cannot be relitigated on collateral attack.
Clayton v. United States, 447 F.2d 476, 477
(9th Cir. 1971); Feldman v. Henman, 815 F.2d 1318
(9th Cir. 1987).
§ 2255 Motion in this case raises claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel by both trial and appellate counsel and
abuse of discretion by the Court at sentencing. (CV Dkt. 1,
7.) The Government asserts the ...