United States v. Jackson, No. 20-35592 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Jackson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking in exchange for the government’s promise to recommend a sentencing range of 120–180 months’ imprisonment. Despite assuring the court during the plea colloquy that there was no “side agreement,” Jackson later argued that he relied on the government’s oral promise that it would not offer his codefendant (Young) a lesser sentence. Young was offered a 90-month sentence. Jackson also claimed ineffective assistance based on his attorney’s failure to ensure that the government’s oral promise was made a part of the record. The district court denied Jackson’s 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, first holding that Jackson’s notice of appeal was valid because his requests for a certificate of appealability, received before the FRAP 4(a)(1)(B) deadline, made clear his intention to appeal; his 2255 motion was not an improper “second or successive” motion because the underlying factual circumstances did not occur until after an earlier 2255 motion was resolved. The record was not sufficient to overcome the presumption that Jackson’s written plea agreement and his sworn plea colloquy statements described the complete agreement. Jackson’s claim was also barred by a collateral attack waiver. The district court abused its discretion by failing to consider Jackson’s pro se letter as a request to amend his section 2255 motion to add a claim of ineffective assistance.
Court Description: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s order denying Tony Junior Jackson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence imposed following his plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, of guilty to one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking. The panel held that Jackson’s notice of appeal was valid and timely because his two requests for a certificate of appealability, received before the deadline set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), made clear his intention to appeal the district court’s order. The panel held that Jackson’s § 2255 motion was not an improper “second or successive” motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because the factual circumstances underlying the motion did not occur until after an earlier § 2255 motion had been resolved. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Jackson’s claim that the government breached the plea agreement because, in addition to the written plea agreement, in which the government promised to recommend a Sentencing Guidelines range of 120–180 months in prison, Jackson also relied on the government’s oral promise that it would not offer his codefendant a lesser UNITED STATES V. JACKSON 3 sentence. The panel held that the record was not sufficient to overcome the presumption that Jackson’s written plea agreement and his sworn statements during the plea colloquy described the complete agreement reached between the parties. The panel further held that Jackson’s claim was barred by a collateral attack waiver. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Jackson waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence other than to challenge the effectiveness of counsel. The panel held that, because the government did not breach the plea agreement, the waiver was valid. Reversing in part, the panel held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider Jackson’s pro se letter as a request to amend his § 2255 motion to add a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to ensure that the government’s oral promise was made a part of the record. The panel remanded for the district court to consider the merits of the ineffective assistance claim in the first instance.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.