United States v. Geraldo

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MANUEL GERALDO, Defendant.

11 Cr. 1032-68 (PAE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

January 21, 2021

ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

Manuel Geraldo pled guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). That charge arose from Geraldo's participation, as a member of the Bronx Trinitarios Gang ("BTG" or "Trinitarios"), in the murder of Orlando Salgado and the attempted murder of a rival gang member. In 2015, the Court sentenced Geraldo to an above-Guidelines term of 320 months' imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. On direct appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed Geraldo's conviction and sentence. Geraldo, now pro se, petitions to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by underestimating the Court's sentencing determination before Geraldo pled guilty, failing to pursue a competency examination and hearing, and failing to pursue certain arguments at sentencing. Dkt. 2545 ("Pet.") at 2, 10, 20-21.¹

For the following reasons, the petition is denied.

I. Background

A. Criminal Conduct

Geraldo, as a member of the BTG, participated in the "terrible and particularly evil" murder of Orlando Salgado. Dkt. 1821 ("Sent. Tr.") at 40-41. On March 19, 2010, another Trinitarios member got into a fight with Raymond Hernandez, a member of the rival Latin Kings gang. See Dkt. 1761 ("Fatico Decision") at 2.² That night, the Trinitarios held a meeting to discuss that fight and the gang's response to it. After the meeting, co-defendant Hargelis Vargas and the Trinitarios member who had been involved in the earlier fight enlisted Geraldo and others to retaliate against the Latin Kings. Geraldo agreed to help, and the group, armed with knives and other weapons, drove 23 blocks north to carry out their attack. According to Geraldo's co-defendants, they did so because of the BTG rule that "when a Trinitario bleed, we all bleed," and because they were "eager to develop a reputation as ruthless, violent, and tough."

After the group arrived at their destination, they began to search the area on foot. Vargas soon saw and identified Hernandez, who was walking with Salgado. Hernandez managed to run away, and the group instead set upon Salgado, who had no gang affiliation. See Sent. Tr. at 41-42 ("[Salgado] was a complete innocent. He had nothing to do with any gang rivalry, so far as anyone knew. He begged for his life. He was denied."). One Trinitarios member struck Salgado several times in the head with a hammer, causing him to fall to the ground. Another then hit him with a metal pipe. Once Salgado fell, Geraldo and another man stabbed him repeatedly. Then, they fled. During their flight, one person remarked, "damn . . . we killed him." Geraldo later "brag[ged]" that he "had stabbed a guy to death." The next day, the group learned that Salgado had, in fact, died.

Geraldo was also involved in several other violent incidents, which involved the stabbing, beating, and shooting of other victims, who were largely rival gang members. Sent. Tr. at 43. Geraldo personally stabbed one such victim, intending to kill him. Id.

B. Indictment and Plea

In February 2013, a grand jury indicted Geraldo on 10 charges, including racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, and several other counts based on his participation in the Salgado murder and two other attempted murders. See Dkt. 539.

In December 2014, Geraldo pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one racketeering conspiracy count. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). At his plea hearing, he admitted to participating in the murder of Salgado and other violence. Dkt. 1627 ("Plea Tr.") at 20-21. Under the plea agreement, the parties left open, for resolution at a Fatico hearing, whether the Salgado murder qualified as a first- or second-degree murder. Id. at 16-17. They stipulated that, if it were in the first degree, the Guidelines range would be 324 to 405 months' imprisonment, and if it were in the second degree, that range would be 210 to 262 months' imprisonment. Id. at 18.

At the plea hearing, Geraldo confirmed that he understood the maximum penalty for participating in a racketeering conspiracy was life imprisonment. Id. at 9-10. He also acknowledged: that (1) the Guidelines ranges set forth in his plea agreement were not binding on the Court, id. at 11-12; (2) even if the Court agreed with the calculation of those ranges, it retained discretion to impose a sentence above or below what the Guidelines recommended, id. at 12-13; (3) "if [his] attorney or anyone else has attempted to predict what [his] sentence [would] be, their prediction could be wrong"; and (4) he had discussed these issues with his counsel, id. at 13-14. He also testified that he had never been treated for any mental illness. Id. at 5. And the Court found, after a colloquy with Geraldo, his counsel, and counsel for the Government, that Geraldo was competent to enter a plea of guilty at that time. Id. at 5-6.

C. Fatico Hearing and Decision

In July 2015, the Court held a Fatico hearing to determine whether the Salgado murder qualified as a first- or second-degree murder. See United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1979). Later that month, the Court issued a decision concluding that, although the question was close, the attack on Salgado was "more accurately characterized as second-degree murder." Fatico Decision at 1. The attack on Salgado, all parties agreed, was premeditated. Id. at 7. But, as to Geraldo, the Court found that the evidence was "more consistent with an intent to assault than an intent to kill." Id. at 8. Even though the attack showed "bloodthirstiness and savagery" and fell close to the line between first- and second-degree murder—such that the Court noted its inclination to impose an above-Guidelines sentence—ultimately the Court found that Geraldo murdered Salgado in the second degree. Id. at 11.

D. Sentencing

In October 2015, the Court sentenced Geraldo. In accord with the parties' stipulation, the Court found the applicable Guidelines range to be between 210 and 262 months' imprisonment. Sent. Tr. at 10. Even so, the Court agreed with the Government that, given the extraordinary nature of Geraldo's offense, an upward variance from that range was necessary to achieve the sentencing goals embodied by the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See id. at 53; id. at 43 ("The guidelines here for second-degree murder, in my estimation, do not contemplate anything like the level of forethought and bloodthirstiness and cruelty that you and your fellow gang members exhibited here."). After discussing those factors at length—including those that pointed toward a lower sentence, such as Geraldo's learning disability and difficult upbringing—the Court imposed a sentence of 320 months' imprisonment, to be followed by five years' supervised release. See id. at 39-53; id. at 49 (recognizing significance of Geraldo's "absent father, limited opportunities, and some degree of ADHD and related learning disabilities").

E. Direct Appeal

In November 2015, Geraldo, represented by counsel, appealed. Dkt. 1816. He argued that the Court's sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. First, he contended that it was procedurally unreasonable because the Court disregarded Geraldo's disability and how it impaired his judgment at sentencing. Second, he argued that the Court erred substantively by failing to explain its basis for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. In April 2017, the Second Circuit affirmed in a summary order. United States v. Geraldo, 687 F. App'x 101, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order). It held that the Court "did consider and discuss the significance of Geraldo's learning disability," but found that factor outweighed, inter alia, by the savage nature of his crimes. Id. at 105-06. It also held that, given the "very serious nature of the violent acts Geraldo admitted to committing," his sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Id. at 106.

F. Geraldo's § 2255 Petition

On December 21, 2018, the Court received from Geraldo a letter stating that he had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on November 14, 2017, and that the Government had not yet responded. Dkt. 2375. At that point, the petition had not been docketed and the Court had not received it. Nevertheless, on the same day, the Court directed the Government to file its response to Geraldo's § 2255 petition. Id. On January 11, 2019, the Government—having received the petition—filed an opposition on the docket. Dkt. 2379 ("Gov't Opp'n"). On February 12, 2019, Geraldo filed a reply, which the Court received. Dkt. 2389 ("Reply"). On October 29, 2020, Geraldo filed a letter asking about the status of his petition. Dkt. 2527. On December 9, 2020, having obtained Geraldo's original petition with help from the Government, the Court placed it on the docket. See Pet.

II. Applicable Legal Standard

Section 2255 enables a prisoner who was sentenced by a federal court to petition that court to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence because "the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Relief under § 2255 is generally available "only for a constitutional error, a lack of jurisdiction in the sentencing court, or an error of law or fact that constitutes 'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.'" United States v. Bokun, 73 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962)). "Because collateral challenges are in tension with society's strong interest in the finality of criminal convictions, the courts have established rules that make it more difficult for a defendant to upset a conviction by collateral, as opposed to direct, attack." Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d 50, 53 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation...