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.

Laposay v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

May 19, 2016

Jason Laposay, Petitioner,
v.
United States of America Respondent. Criminal Action No. 1:12-cr-146

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Liam O'Grady, United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Jason Laposay's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because his counsel provided ineffective assistance to him. Dkt. No. 43. The government opposes this Motion as untimely and unmeritorious. The Court finds the Motion is both untimely and unmeritorious and thus finds good cause to DENY the Motion on the merits.

         I. Background

         On June 29, 2012, Laposay pleaded guilty before this Court to one count of production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b), a crime that carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. Dkt. No. 22. However, the evidence overwhelming demonstrated that Petitioner had sexually abused a prepubescent child for several years and was in possession of hundreds of pictures of child pornography. On December 14, 2012, the Court sentenced Laposay to 30 years imprisonment, 15 years of supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $52, 840. In accordance with his plea agreement, Laposay did not file an appeal with the Fourth Circuit.

         Over two years later, around February 13, 2015, [1] Laposay filed the current Motion to Vacate. Dkt. No. 43. After obtaining an extension of time, the Government filed a response in opposition to the Motion on May 20, 2015. Dkt. No. 54. Laposay then filed a timely reply in support of his Motion. Dkt. No. 56.

         II. Discussion

         Laposay's Motion states three grounds upon which his Motion should be granted: (1) his counsel provided ineffective assistance during the pre-plea and guilty plea stages, (2) his counsel was ineffective during the sentencing stages, and (3) his counsel was ineffective considering the totality of the circumstances. Laposay's brief in support of his motion adds one additional argument: (4) his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that the plea agreement was void. The Court will first address whether this Motion is timely and then address whether any of the four grounds Laposay has asserted have merit.

         A. Whether Laposay's S 2255 Motion is Timely

         A one year time limit applies to § 2255 motions. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(0; Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 524 (2003). All § 2255 motions must be filed within one year of the latest of the following four dates:

(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 making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through 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.