Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Valerio v. United States

November 9, 2005

JEREMY D. VALERIO, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

OPINION

Petitioner Jeremy Valerio brings this pro se civil action for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner plead guilty to a two count Indictment, which charged him with (1) knowingly receiving and possessing a firearm (i.e. a bomb) and (2) knowingly and wilfully using, carrying and discharging a firearm (i.e. a bomb). On October 15, 2003, this Court sentenced Petitioner to 151 months imprisonment on Count One and a consecutive 120 month term of imprisonment on Count Two, for a total aggregate sentence of 271 months imprisonment.

In his petition, Mr. Valerio raises two claims under which he argues his sentence should be set aside or vacated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. First, Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Second, Petitioner contends that under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), his sentence pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner's habeas corpus application will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

In April 2002, Petitioner Jeremy Valerio, along with co-conspirators Victoria Moore, Kevin Frymyer and Karl Webb, conspired to blow up a car and a house using explosive bombs in retaliation for a drug deal gone awry. The conspiracy began when Ms. Moore came into possession of the controlled substance Ecstasy following a drug deal. (Govt. Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 17, 24.) On April 14, 2002, H.W., A.H. and another male arrived at Mr. Frymyer's residence wishing to speak with Ms. Moore about money she owed them from the Ecstasy deal. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Mr. Frymyer engaged in a heated argument with H.W., A.H. and the other unidentified male while Ms. Moore hid in Mr. Frymyer's residence. (Id.)

Following the incident, Mr. Frymyer, Ms. Moore, Mr. Valerio and others drove to the residence of Mr. Frymyer's mother-in-law. (Id. at ¶ 18.) There, Mr. Frymyer learned that H.W. had threatened Mr. Frymyer's mother-in-law and demanded that she repay Ms. Moore's debt. (Id.) Mr. Frymyer became enraged, stating that he was "going to kill H.W.," and subsequently attempted to purchase a firearm. (Id.)

When the firearm became unavailable, Mr. Valerio suggested the group obtain a bomb. (Id.) Mr. Valerio, Mr. Frymyer and others drove to Karl Webb's residence to purchase the bomb. (Id. at ¶ 19.) After purchasing the device, Ms. Moore drove Mr. Frymyer and Mr. Valerio to M.N.'s residence. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Mr. Frymyer and Mr. Valerio got out of the car and attempted to bomb a white Grand Prix owned by M.N. (Id.) The device failed to detonate so Mr. Valerio bought another device from Mr. Webb. (Id. at ¶¶ 26, 27.)

Later that same day, Ms. Moore and Mr. Valerio returned to H.W.'s residence in Franklinville, New Jersey. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 28.) After surveying the area, Mr. Valerio threw the device purchased from Mr. Webb through the window of H.W.'s residence. (Id. at ¶ 28.) The device exploded and the ensuing fire caused extensive damage to the interior of the residence. (Id. at 16.) H.W. and A.H., pregnant at the time, were inside the residence and were both injured while trying to escape from the fire. (Id.)

On December 10, 2002, a Grand Jury returned a three-count Indictment against Petitioner. (Def. Br. at 6.) Subsequently, Mr. Valerio entered a plea agreement with the United States and, based on the negotiations, the United States agreed to dismiss Count Three of the Indictment. (Id. at 9.) On June 26, 2003, Petitioner plead guilty to Counts One and Two of the Indictment. (Id.) Petitioner was sentenced by this Court on October 15, 2003 to 151 months imprisonment on Count One and a consecutive 120 month term of imprisonment on Count Two for a total aggregate sentence of 271 months. (Id.) Petitioner filed the instant pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on October 18, 2004. Respondent, the United States of America, answered on July 5, 2005. In an August 3, 2005 order, this Court enlarged Petitioner's time to respond to Respondent's Answer until October 12, 2005. Petitioner failed to reply to Respondent's Answer by this date.

II. DISUSSION

A. Jurisdiction

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 permits a prisoner in custody under a sentence of a federal court to move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426 (1962). The prisoner may assert the right to be released upon several grounds, including that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim

Petitioner argues that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he is entitled to relief because he was denied effective assistance of counsel during the plea agreement and sentencing proceeding. (Pet'r Motion at 5.) Generally, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) this deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In meeting the first requirement, the petitioner must show that counsel's representation fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness" and outside the range of competent assistance demanded of professional criminal defense attorneys. Id. at 688; see also United States v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir. 1991). An evaluation of the attorney's performance must be from the attorney's perspective at the time of the alleged error, and should indulge a strong presumption that counsel's performance is within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Because of the variety of legitimate strategies by which an attorney can defend a client, the defendant must overcome the assumption that the challenged action "might be considered sound trial strategy" under the circumstances. Id.

As per the second requirement, in order to prove prejudice the petitioner must show that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. Unless the petitioner makes both showings, the applicant's sentence cannot be said to have resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process. Id. at 687.

The Strickland two-part standard applies to ineffective assistance of counsel claims arising out of the guilty plea process. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985). In the context of guilty pleas, the first requirement of Strickland remains "nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence." Id. at 58. The prejudice requirement "on the other hand, focuses on whether counsel's constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process." Id. at 59. Therefore, in order to satisfy this requirement, the petitioner must show that "but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." Id.

Here, Petitioner asserts in his motion, for the first time, that his lawyer told him that if Petitioner plead guilty to 30 years of imprisonment, the United States would recommend a sentence of 15 years at the time of his sentencing. (Pet. Addendum.) Petitioner supports his claim with a declaration dated September 26, 2004 signed by Alex Valerio, Petitioner's biological father, which avers that Petitioner's lawyer told him of this alleged oral deal with the United States. (Id.)

However, the entire plea colloquy undermines Mr. Valerio's present claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea agreement. On June 26, 2003, this Court conducted an extensive plea colloquy with Petitioner, at which time he acknowledged under oath that he fully understood the plea agreement, and voluntarily ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.