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.

Adakai v. United States

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

November 28, 2017

KRISOHN ADAKAI, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody filed by Movant, Krisohn Adakai, on May 9, 2016 (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 27) (“§ 2255 Motion”). In her § 2255 Motion, Adakai makes three ineffective assistance of counsel arguments: (1) that her defense counsel failed to explain the appeal process and to file a notice of appeal after sentencing; (2) that defense counsel failed to petition the court to order a mental evaluation and assessment; and (3) that her guilty plea was not made voluntarily or with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. (CV Doc. 1 at 4-5; CR Doc. 27 at 3-5). The Court determines that Movant Adakai's claims are barred by the statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Further, even if the claims are not barred, Movant Adakai knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and she received effective assistance of counsel. Therefore the Court denies Adakai's § 2255 Motion.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In 2012, Krisohn Adakai was charged with second degree murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 1111. (CR Doc. 1). A criminal Information was filed on June 13, 2013, charging that on July 28, 2012, Adakai “with malice aforethought did unlawfully kill Jane Doe, a human being, by stabbing her in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 1111.” (Doc. 18). Assistant Federal Public Defender James Loonan was appointed to represent Adakai in July 31, 2012. Adakai then retained private counsel, and attorney Emeterio Rudolfo substituted for Public Defender Loonan as counsel for Adakai on September 13, 2012. (CR Doc. 13, 14).

         Adakai pled guilty to the charge of second degree murder under a Plea Agreement on July 13, 2013. (Doc. 20, 21, 22). In consenting to plead before a United States Magistrate Judge, Adakai expressly stated that the nature of the offense and the maximum penalties had been explained to her, and that she had been informed of her rights to assistance of counsel and to go to trial and sentencing before a District Judge. (Doc. 20). The Plea Agreement, which was signed by Adakai, also stated:

“Defendant has thoroughly reviewed all aspects of the case with Defendant's attorney and is fully satisfied with her attorney's legal representation . . . Defendant is aware that 18 U.S.C. § 3742 affords Defendant the right to appeal a conviction and sentence imposed. Acknowledging that, Defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal her conviction and sentenced imposed in this case, except to the extent, if any, that the Court may impose a sentence that differs from that agreed to by the parties under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C).”

(CR Doc. 21 at 1, 6). In the Plea Agreement, Adakai agreed to plead guilty to the Information charging second degree murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 1111. (CR Doc. 21 at 2). The parties also agreed to an 11-year sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C). (CR Doc. 21 at 3). Had Adakai proceeded to trial, she could have been sentenced to life imprisonment. (CR Doc. 21 at 2).

         On September 12, 2013, the Court accepted the Plea Agreement and sentenced Adakai to the agreed 11 years of imprisonment. (CR Doc. 24, 25, 26). Judgment was entered on the sentence on September 13, 2013. (CR Doc. 25). An Amended Judgment was then entered on October 3, 2013, to correct a clerical error in the date of the offense. (CR Doc. 26). Adakai filed her pro se § 2255 Motion on May 9, 2016. (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 27).

         Adakai seeks § 2255 relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to petition the court for a mental evaluation and assessment, obtaining a conviction by a guilty plea that was not made voluntarily or knowingly, and failing to explain the appellate process and file a post-sentence appeal. (CV Doc. 1 at 4-5; CR Doc. 27 at 4-5). Adakai does not contend that, but for ineffective assistance of counsel, she would not have pled guilty. Instead, she claims that she wanted to appeal in order to receive a shorter sentence. (CV Doc. 1 at 4, CR Doc. 27 at 4).

         II. ANALYSIS OF KRISOHN ADAKAI'S CLAIMS

         A. Adakai's Claims are Barred by the Statute of Limitations:

         Section 2255(f) sets out the statute of limitations governing motions for collateral review of convictions and sentences:

         “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.