Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Aragon v. United States

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

October 24, 2017



         The Court, under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings For the United States District Courts, considers Movant Dennis C. Aragon's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody (Motion) (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 59). The Motion was not filed within the one year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) and will be dismissed as untimely.

         Movant Dennis C. Aragon was indicted on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On September 20, 2013, he pled guilty to the indictment by a written Plea Agreement. (CR Doc. 44). In his Plea Agreement, Aragon waived his right to appeal and to collaterally attack his conviction and the sentence imposed, other than on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating or entering into the plea or waiver. (CR Doc. 44 at 7-8).

         In 2010, Aragon had been convicted in New Mexico state court of possession of a personal-use quantity of heroin and had received a sentence of probation. (CR Doc. 49 at 6). At the time he committed the offense in this case, he was on probation for the 2010 state court conviction and sentence. (CR Doc. 49 at 6). New Mexico state court charges were brought against Aragon stemming from the same events giving rise to his federal charges in this case. See State v. Aragon, No. D-202-CR-2012-05332.

         The United States Probation Office prepared a revised Presentence Report (“PSR”), which calculated a total offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of V, yielding an advisory Guidelines sentencing range of 84-105 months. (CR Doc. 53 at 1). Aragon sought a downward departure, contending that the four criminal history points that were based on the 2010 conviction and the fact that the instant offense was committed while he was on probation resulted in over-representation of his criminal history. Aragon requested a one level reduction in his criminal history. (CR Doc. 49 at 5-6). Aragon also asked that the Court order his federal sentence to be served concurrently with any sentence imposed in his pending state criminal case. (CR Doc. 49 at 9-10). The United States did not oppose a one level criminal history downward departure or an order that Aragon's federal sentence be served concurrently with any state court sentence. (CR Doc. 52 at 1-2). On March 17, 2014, the Court accepted the Plea Agreement and sentenced Aragon to 51 months and 21 days of imprisonment. (CR Doc. 55). The Court ordered that his federal sentence would run concurrently with any sentence later imposed in New Mexico case No. D-202-CR-2012-05332.

         Consistent with his Plea Agreement, Aragon did not file any direct appeal of his conviction and sentence. The Court takes judicial notice that the charges in New Mexico state court case No. D-202-CR-2012-05332 were dismissed on September 15, 2014 by a Nolle Prosequi filed by the State of New Mexico because Aragon was serving the federal sentence imposed in this case for charges stemming out of the same incident. United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n. 5 (10th Cir.2007) (The Court may take judicial notice of publicly filed records in this court and other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand). The Nolle Prosequi was filed in state court several months after the deadline for filing any direct appeal of Aragon's federal conviction and sentence. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1).

         Aragon filed his Motion on August 10, 2016. (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 59). Aragon argues two grounds in support of his Motion:

“Trial Counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to consult the petitioner about an appeal and also failing to perfect an appeal, once his state charges were dismissed after his sentence on federal gun violations resulting in the denial of his Sixth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution . . .
Petitioner's Counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to object to the Pre-Sentence Report.”
(CV Doc. 1 at 11, 13; CR Doc. 59 at 11, 13).

         On August 16, 2016, the Court entered an Order directing Aragon to show cause why his Motion should not be dismissed as untimely under the 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) one-year statute of limitations. (Doc. 60). Aragon responded that he did not file his Motion within the one-year time limit because his attorney had advised him that she would file an appeal “because the charges that the Court used to enhance his sentence were dismissed soon after his conviction in federal court” and he was unaware that his attorney had not filed a notice of appeal. (CR Doc. 62).

         Aragon is proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255(f) states:

“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from ...

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.