United States v. Rodriguez

When a defendant files a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “a hearing is mandatory whenever the record does not affirmatively manifest the factual or legal invalidity of the petitioner’s claims.” Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982).

Rodriguez was arrested while attempting to sell methamphetamine to a confidential informant and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute. After sentencing, he filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, making three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court rejected the first two claims without an evidentiary hearing and determined the third claim had been waived. Rodriguez appealed the district court’s judgment. When a defendant files a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “a hearing is mandatory whenever the record does not affirmatively manifest the factual or legal invalidity of the petitioner’s claims.” Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court reasoned that, because the record contained only Rodriguez’s recollection of his attorney’s statements and did not “conclusively” disprove his first claim, the district court abused its discretion when it denied an evidentiary hearing on that claim. Rodriguez’s second claim was properly denied because the record provided no grounds for him to attack the presumption that his counsel’s conduct fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance. The third claim was properly denied as it was waived as part of Rodriguez’s guilty plea. Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the first claim.