Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lagona v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. New York

June 27, 2018

JAMES F. LAGONA, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM M. SKRETNY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Presently before this Court is pro se[1] petitioner James F. Lagona's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 302.[2]) For the reasons discussed below, Lagona's motion is denied.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On February 23, 2011, after an 11-day trial, a jury returned a guilty verdict against Lagona on 26 counts of mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1341; and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. (Docket Nos. 76, 81.)

         Lagona and others were involved in a scheme to sell debentures under the names Watermark Financial Services Group and Watermark M-One Holdings, Inc. Beginning in January 2006, commissioned sales staff offered investment opportunities in one- or two-year debentures that promised 10% annual interest. Among other representations, investors were told that their investments would fund real estate development in Maine and a health insurance network for religious institutions. What individuals were not told, however, was that the “convertible debentures” they were purchasing were unsecured loans to the Watermark entities which, before the due date for repayment, could be converted into shares of common stock in the company. Individuals who testified at trial explained that, based on representations made to them, they believed they were making a safe, guaranteed investment with little to no risk. Between January 2006 and May 2008, this scheme realized $6, 758, 027, but only $241, 000 was actually invested, and only $545, 064 in principal and interest was returned to investors.[3]

         On March 20, 2013, this Court sentenced Lagona to 9 years' imprisonment on the mail fraud counts (to run concurrent) and 1 year of imprisonment on the conspiracy count (to run consecutive).[4] (Docket No. 218.)

         Lagona appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, on October 24, 2014, denied the appeal in a consolidated summary order. See Gane v. United States, 592 Fed.App'x 4 (2d Cir. 2014). The Second Circuit rejected Lagona's arguments (1) that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial that he intended to defraud or knew about the scheme, (2) that there was an unacceptable risk that speculative legal theories led to his convictions, (3) that this Court admitted impermissible hearsay evidence, (4) that this Court erroneously instructed the jury, and (5) that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. See id. at *1-8. The Second Circuit consequently affirmed Lagona's conviction and sentence. See id. at *8.

         The United States Supreme Court denied Lagona's petition for writ of certiorari on June 8, 2015. See Lagona v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2828, 192 L.Ed.2d 864 (2015). Less than one year later, on May 27, 2016, Lagona timely filed the instant § 2255 motion, [5]which the government opposes.[6] (Docket Nos. 302, 307, 310, 335.)

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. § 2255 Proceedings

         Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 2255 allows federal prisoners to challenge the legality of their sentences. That section provides, in pertinent part, that:

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (a).

         Importantly, a § 2255 motion is not a substitute for an appeal. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) (“Habeas review is an extraordinary remedy and ‘will not be allowed to do service for an appeal.'”) (quoting Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 354, 114 S.Ct. 2291, 2300, 129 L.Ed. 2D 277 (1994)). Relief under § 2255 is therefore narrowly limited, with collateral attack on a final criminal judgment 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 complete miscarriage of justice.” Graziano v. United States, 83 F.3d 587, 589-90 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Bokun, 73 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)). This narrow limitation preserves respect for finality, allows for the efficient allocation of judicial resources, and recognizes an aversion to retrying issues long after they occur. See Bokun, 73 F.3d at 12 (citations omitted).

         To shape the narrow relief available under § 2255, two procedural rules apply to make it more difficult for a defendant to upset a final criminal judgment on collateral review. See Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d 50, 53 (2d Cir. 2010). First, the “mandate rule” bars re-litigation of issues already decided on direct appeal. See id.; see also Burrell v. United States, 467 F.3d 160, 165 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255, 260 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is well-established that issues decided on direct appeal may not be re-litigated in the context of a petition under § 2255.”) This includes “not only . . . matters expressly decided by the appellate court, but also . . . re-litigation of issues impliedly resolved by the appellate court's mandate.” Yick Man Mui, 614 F.3d at 53 (citing United States v. Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2001)). This rule also bars ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that were raised and resolved on direct appeal, as well as those involving factual predicates that while not explicitly raised on direct appeal, were impliedly rejected by the appellate court mandate. See id. at 53-54 (citations omitted). An exception to this rule exists for cases involving intervening changes in the law, in which case the petitioner “must show that there is new law which, when applied to their claims, would result in a different disposition.” Chin v. United States, 622 F.2d 1090, 1092 (2d Cir. 1980) (“Reconsideration [of claims previously raised on direct appeal] is permitted only where there has been an intervening change in the law and the new law would have exonerated a defendant had it been in force before the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.”) (citing United States v. Loschiavo, 531 F.2d 659, 664 (2d Cir. 1976)).

         Second, the “procedural default” rule bars the collateral review of claims that could have been raised on direct appeal, unless the petitioner shows cause for failing to raise the claims on direct review and actual “prejudice” or actual innocence. See Bousley, 523 U.S. at 622-23 (citations omitted); see also Marone v. United States, 10 F.3d 65, 67 (2d Cir. 1993) (“In order to raise a claim that could have been raised on direct appeal, a § 2255 petitioner must show cause for failing to raise the claim at the appropriate time and prejudice from the alleged error.”) This rule does not apply to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, which may be brought in a § 2255 motion regardless of whether they could have been raised, or were raised, on direct appeal. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 508-09, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 1696, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).

         Discovery in § 2255 proceedings is governed by Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. Leave of court is required to engage in discovery, which may be granted for good cause. See Rule 6 (a). Such discovery is conducted under the Federal Rules of Criminal or Civil Procedure, or “in accordance with the practices and principles of law.”[7] Id. The party requesting discovery must provide reasons for the request, which must “include any proposed interrogatories and requests for admission, and must specify any requested documents.” Rule 6 (b).

         A petitioner may also be entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Section 2255 provides that a court shall hold an evidentiary hearing “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” To determine whether a hearing is necessary, the court “must review the answer, any transcripts and records of prior proceedings, and any [additional materials submitted by the parties].” Rule 8 (a). If a hearing is necessary, the court must appoint an attorney to any moving party who qualifies for the appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. See Rule 8 (c). A hearing is generally warranted only where the petitioner establishes a plausible claim. See Puglisi v. United States, 586 F.3d 209, 213 (2d Cir. 2009).

         The Second Circuit has further described the standard for holding a § 2255 evidentiary hearing as follows:

In ruling on a motion under § 2255, the district court is required to hold a hearing “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see, e.g., Pham v. United States, 317 F.3d 178, 185 (2d Cir. 2003) (§ 2255 does not permit summary dismissals of motions that present facially valid claims). However, the filing of a motion pursuant to § 2255 does not automatically entitle the movant to a hearing; that section does not imply that there must be a hearing where the allegations are “vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible.” Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962); see, e.g., Chang v. United States, 250 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2001). To warrant a hearing, the motion must set forth specific facts supported by competent evidence, raising detailed and controverted issues of fact that, if proved at a hearing, would entitle him to relief. See, e.g., Machibroda, 368 U.S at 494, 82 S.Ct. 510; United States v. Aiello, 814 F.2d 109, 113-14 (2d Cir. 1987).

Gonzalez v. United States, 722 F.3d 118, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2013).

         The petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief under § 2255 by a preponderance of the evidence. See Galviz Zapata v. United States, 431 F.3d 395, 399 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Williams v. United States, 481 F.2d 339, 346 (2d Cir. 1973)); see also Triana v. United States, 205 F.3d 36, 30 (2d Cir. 2000).

         B. Lagona's Claims

         Lagona asserts two grounds in his petition: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (id. at ¶¶ 10-63); and (2) “movant's state of mind at the time of the alleged crimes and during the trial is in question, ” which this Court interprets as challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of Lagona's intent (Docket No. 302, ¶¶ 64, 65). These claims are addressed below.

         1. Lagona's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims fail.

         Lagona maintains that his trial counsel was ineffective. He claims that trial counsel (1) failed to meet with and interview certain witnesses (Docket No. 302, ¶¶ 12-14); (2) failed to file a motion in limine to preclude reference to or evidence of his religion or religious practices (id. at ¶¶ 15-16); (3) failed to properly handle evidence concerning Konstantinos “Kostas” Samouilidis (id. at ¶¶ 17-23); (4) failed to investigate Guy Gane's background (id. at ¶¶ 24-30); (5) failed to investigate or secure documents relating to his daughter's hospitalization (id. at ¶¶ 31-33); and (6) failed to advise him of the government's plea offer (id. at ¶¶ 34-38).

         The Sixth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." U.S. CONST. amend VI. It is well established that "the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel." Eze v. Senkowski, 321 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n.14, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed. 2D 763 (1970)).

         Lagona's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims may be brought in this collateral proceeding under § 2255 regardless of whether they could have been raised, or were raised, on direct appeal.[8] See Massaro, 538 U.S. at 508-09. To succeed on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and to secure reversal of his conviction on the ground of inadequate legal representation, Lagona must satisfy both prongs of the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington: (1) that his counsel's performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness;” and (2) that “the deficient performance prejudiced” him. 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

         To satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test, Lagona must establish that his counsel's conduct fell below “an objective standard of reasonableness” under “prevailing professional norms” such that it was “outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 688, 690. Under this prong, the court “must ‘indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance' and be watchful ‘to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight.'” Aparicio v. Artuz, 269 F.3d 78, 95 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). This is because “[t]here are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case” and “[e]ven the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (internal citation omitted). The question is ultimately “whether an attorney's representation amounted to incompetence under prevailing professional norms, not whether it deviated from best practices or most common custom.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

         To satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test, Lagona must establish that his attorney's “deficient performance prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 694. The Second Circuit normally “requires some objective evidence other than defendant's assertions to establish prejudice, ” Pham v. United States, 317 F.3d 182, 182 (2d Cir. 2003), because “not every error that conceivably could have influenced the outcome undermines the reliability of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.