No. 24-5972

Alex N. Morales-Velez v. United States

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2024-11-14
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure ineffective-assistance mandatory-minimum plea-agreement sentencing-recommendation strickland-standard
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2024-12-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether defense counsel's failure to object to a sentencing recommendation constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW , ' 1, Whether defense counsel's failure to object to the government's high-end sentencing recommendation —contrary to the terms of the plea agreement following Amendment 782—constituted ineffective. assistance of counsel, thereby depriving Morales-Vélez of the benefits of the negotiated plea agreement and resulting in an excessively harsh sentence under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the sentencing court’s failure to explicitly apply the discretionary principles established in Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 the ability to consider mandatory minimum sentences imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) when determining sentences for predicate offenses—warrants remand to ensure a proportionate and fair sentence consistent with § 3553(a) and the individualized sentencing objectives articulated in Dean. ; il

Docket Entries

2024-12-09
Petition DENIED.
2024-11-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2024.
2024-11-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-11-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 16, 2024)

Attorneys

Alex Morales-Velez
Alex Morales-Velez — Petitioner
Alex Morales-Velez — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent