United States v. Barajas

In United States v. Barajas, No. 23-10853 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2024) (unpublished), the defendant had filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking to vacate her sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied that motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, and on appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision.

Background: “Before Barajas was indicted, the Government offered her a plea agreement” that would have her plead guilty to a crime carrying a 20-year maximum sentence. Her attorney met with Barajas several times to discuss the offer. Barajas refused the offer. Barajas was later indicted for a sentence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life in prison.

Barajas wrote to the court about “current” issues with her lawyer and asked for a new lawyer. She wrote that the lawyer refused to help her understand, refused to show her the evidence, and pressured her to “sign something [she didn’t] understand.” After Barajas and her lawyer met again, the lawyer filed a motion to withdraw as counsel although she “largely disputed the allegation in Barajas’s letter.” Nevertheless, Barajas later hired new counsel. With that new lawyer, Barajas pled guilty to the indictment and was sentenced to spend 400 months in prison.

Later, Barajas filed her § 2255 motion, arguing that her first lawyer had “failed to provide her with accurate advice regarding the plea agreement and unreasonably delayed in clarifying and relaying its terms to her, and as a result her sentencing exposure significantly increased.” In response, the lawyer completed an affidavit “strongly den[ying] Barajas’s allegations” and claiming that Barajas had actually refused to accept either the original plea offer or a later, revised offer.

Holding: “The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing, and it properly denied Barajas’s § 2255 motion.”

Barajas argued that her case was one of “dueling affidavits,” so the court needed to hold a hearing to decide between them. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, noting that there was “ample” other evidence in the record, including testimony from when Barajas’s lawyer had moved to withdraw. Therefore, Barajas’s motion failed on its merits.

In part, the record showed that Barajas’s original lawyer had “promptly communicated and explained the Government’s initial plea offer to Barajas,” and it showed they had met “six times before the indictment to discuss the plea agreement.” Barajas herself had said in court, at the hearing on the motion to withdraw, that the lawyer had described the possible sentencing ranges both under the plea agreement and if she were convicted at trial.

Finally, Barajas had not shown that she was prejudiced even if her lawyer had been ineffective. Barajas had chosen to reject the plea offer and refused the lawyer’s later offer to see if the Government would re-make the original offer. No evidence suggested that Barajas would have accepted the plea offer absent the allegedly inadequate assistance.

For all those reasons, the district court properly denied the motion without a hearing.