Ayala-Garcia v. USA, No. 3:2014cv01587 - Document 5 (D.P.R. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) (Criminal Number 06-066) filed by Johnny Ayala-Garcia. Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, summary dismissal is in order bec ause it plainly appears from the record that Ayala-Garcia is not entitled to § 2255 relief from this court. While Ayala-Garcia has not yet requested a COA, we see no way in which a reasonable jurist could find our assessment of his constitutiona l claims debatable or wrong. Ayala-Garcia may request a COA directly from the First Circuit, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. Judgment to be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 10/3/2014.(mrj)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 4 JOHNNY AYALA-GARCà A, Petitioner, Civil No. 14-1587 (JAF) v. (Crim. No. 06-66-2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. 5 6 OPINION AND ORDER 7 Petitioner Johnny Ayala-García ( Ayala-García ) comes before the court with a 8 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence we imposed 9 in Criminal No. 06-66-2. (Docket No. 1.) Because it is time-barred and because he has 10 not supported his claim of actual innocence, we must deny his petition. 11 I. 12 Background 13 On November 15, 2006, Ayala-García pleaded guilty to his role in a deadly armed 14 carjacking. (Docket Nos. 62, 70.) On February 21, 2007, we sentenced him to 420 15 months imprisonment. (Docket No. 84.) Ayala-García filed a notice of appeal, and his 16 counsel submitted a motion under Local Rule 46.6(c)(4), stating that there were no non- 17 frivolous issues for the First Circuit to consider. United States v. Ayala-García (1st Cir. 18 2008). 19 transcripts and record materials, we conclude that counsel s invocation of Local Rule 20 46.6(c)(4) is well taken, and summarily affirmed the judgment. United States v. Ayala- On July 9, 2008, the First Circuit wrote that based on our review of the Civil No. 14-1587 (JAF) -2- 1 García (1st Cir. 2008). On July 31, 2014, Ayala-García filed the instant motion to vacate 2 his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 3 II. 4 Jurisdiction 5 Ayala-García is currently in federal custody, having been sentenced by this district 6 court. To file a timely motion, Ayala-García had one year from the date his judgment 7 became final; one year from the date on which an impediment to such motion created by 8 governmental action was removed; one year from the date on which the Supreme Court 9 recognized a new retroactively-applicable right; or one year from when the relevant facts 10 could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). 11 Ayala-García does not argue that the government created an impediment to such motion; 12 that there is a new retroactively-applicable Supreme Court rule; or that he discovered new 13 facts after the disposition of his case. See Docket No. 1. His judgment became final on 14 the last day that he could have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which was ninety 15 days after the entry of the Court of Appeals judgment. SUP. CT. R. 13(1); Clay v. United 16 States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003). Therefore, his judgment became final on October 7, 2008, 17 and he had until October 7, 2009, to file the instant motion. Ayala-García did not file 18 until July 31, 2014, nearly three years too late. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction and must 19 deny his petition. 20 III. 21 Actual Innocence 22 In an attempt to defeat the time bar, Ayala-García claims actual innocence. 23 (Docket No. 1.) Actual innocence, if shown, would allow us to consider the merits of his 24 case, because courts aim to correct clear miscarriages of justice. See Schlup v. Delo, 513 Civil No. 14-1587 (JAF) -3- 1 U.S. 298 (1995). Ayala-García writes that he is actually and factually innocent of the 2 crime to which he entered a guilty plea [ ¦and] that his guilty plea was the product of 3 threats and coercion by a corrections officer and family member of the victim. (Docket 4 No. 1 at 15.) The Supreme Court stated that actual innocence requires a showing that no 5 reasonable juror would have found the defendant guilty. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 329. To 6 support a claim of actual innocence, the petitioner must support his allegations of 7 constitutional error with new reliable evidence whether it be exculpatory scientific 8 evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence that was not 9 presented at trial. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324. Ayala-García has presented no new reliable 10 evidence. 11 Further, at the change of plea hearing, Ayala-García repeatedly asserted that he 12 had not been coerced into pleading guilty. The following transcript portion is illustrative: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: Has anyone threatened you or anybody else related to you in order to force you or induce you to plead in this case? (Crim. No. 06-66-2, Docket No. 70 at 19.) 20 We later asked: DEFENDANT AYALA GARCIA: No. THE COURT: Has anybody made any promise to you, any promise to you, in order to induce you or force you to plead in this case? 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (Crim. No. 06-66-2, Docket No. 70 at 20.) According to the First Circuit, we are entitled 28 to give weight to the defendant s statements at his change-of-plea colloquy absent a 29 good reason for disregarding them [ ¦] Without independent corroboration, we not DEFENDANT AYALA GARCIA: No. Civil No. 14-1587 (JAF) -4- 1 only view his plea colloquy as evidential, but sufficiently conclusive to contradict his 2 claims. U.S. v. Santiago Miranda, 654 F.3d 130, 138 (1st Cir. 2011). Therefore, 3 Ayala-García s claim of actual innocence fails. 4 IV. 5 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 6 Ayala-García also claims ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that trial 7 counsel refused to investigate petitioner s claims that he was being threatened and 8 harassed by a corrections officer-family member of the victim and that trial counsel 9 lied about investigating petitioner s claims that he had been beaten by corrections officers 10 who stated that if Petitioner did not plead guilty, officers would harm Petitioner s family 11 member. (Docket No. 1 at 15.) For the reasons stated above, this claim is both time- 12 barred and contradicted by Ayala-García s own statements before the court. 13 V. 14 15 16 Certificate of Appealability In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, whenever 17 issuing a denial of § 2255 relief we must concurrently determine whether to issue a 18 certificate of appealability ( COA ). In this respect, we state that it has become common 19 practice to collaterally challenge federal convictions in federal court by raising arguments 20 of dubious merit. This practice is overburdening federal district courts to the point of 21 having some of these criminal cases re-litigated on § 2255 grounds. We look at this 22 matter with respect to the rights of litigants, but also must protect the integrity of the 23 system against meritless allegations. See Davis v. U.S., 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974) (in a 24 motion to vacate judgment under §2255, the claimed error of law must be a fundamental 25 defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice); see also Dirring v. Civil No. 14-1587 (JAF) -5- 1 U.S., 370 F.2d 862 (1st Cir. 1967) (§ 2255 is a remedy available when some basic 2 fundamental right is denied not as vehicle for routine review for defendant who is 3 dissatisfied with his sentence). 4 We grant a COA only upon a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 5 right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing, [t]he petitioner must demonstrate 6 that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional 7 claims debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (quoting 8 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). While Ayala-García has not yet requested 9 a COA, we see no way in which a reasonable jurist could find our assessment of his 10 constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Ayala-García may request a COA directly 11 from the First Circuit, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. 12 VI. 13 Conclusion 14 For the foregoing reasons, we hereby DENY Ayala-García s § 2255 motion 15 (Docket No. 1). Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, 16 summary dismissal is in order because it plainly appears from the record that Ayala- 17 García is not entitled to § 2255 relief from this court. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 3rd day of October, 2014. 20 21 22 S/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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.