United States v. Mejia

Citation: 18 F. App'x 20Docket: No. 00-1399

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; July 18, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. An indictment was filed on April 28, 1988, against Luis Mejia, Julio Reynoso, and Salvador Garcia for (1) conspiracy to distribute cocaine, (2) possession with intent to distribute 2.5 kilograms of cocaine, and (3) distribution of approximately one kilogram of cocaine, violating various sections of U.S. law. The trial took place from October 4 to October 7, 1988, primarily relying on the testimony of confidential informant Mario Perez and DEA Special Agent James Hunt, along with seized evidence. 

Perez's interactions with Mejia began on April 7, 1988, when he sought to purchase cocaine. Mejia indicated his willingness to supply cocaine if Perez's initial transaction failed. Following further communications, Perez met Mejia and Reynoso on April 14, 1988, during an unsuccessful attempt to procure cocaine, leading to a meeting with Garcia, who ultimately sold cocaine to Perez. DEA agents arrested Mejia in the car while Reynoso and Garcia were arrested in the apartment.

Mejia did not present a defense at trial, and the jury convicted all defendants on all counts. They failed to appear for sentencing on November 18, 1988, resulting in bench warrants and a subsequent indictment for bail jumping approximately ten years later. Mejia was apprehended on September 2, 1998, and pleaded guilty to bail jumping on November 17, 1998. He later filed a motion for a new trial based on alleged misconduct by Agent Hunt, which the court denied, stating the issues were unrelated to Mejia's case and that the evidence against him was overwhelming. Mejia was sentenced to 100 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release on each count.

The court sentenced Mejia to twenty months of imprisonment for bail jumping, to be served consecutively to a 100-month sentence for narcotics convictions, along with three years of supervised release to run concurrently with the narcotics sentence. Mejia appealed, raising four arguments. He first claimed insufficient evidence for his drug conspiracy conviction, which was rejected; the jury's verdict is upheld if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence presented included testimony from Perez indicating Mejia’s involvement in suggesting and facilitating drug transactions, which supported the conspiracy conviction despite Mejia's assertions that he did not enter the sale location or participate in conversations.

Next, Mejia argued ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting his trial counsel prevented him from testifying. This claim was dismissed as unsupported by the record, relying solely on Mejia's unverified statement. Mejia's third argument challenged the denial of a new trial based on alleged misconduct by Agent Hunt, asserting a Brady violation due to the government's failure to disclose this misconduct. However, the court noted that the information about Hunt's misconduct only became known after Mejia’s trial, negating any Brady obligation. Finally, Mejia claimed the misconduct constituted newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial, but he needed to show that it could not have been discovered earlier and that it was material enough to likely lead to acquittal.

In United States v. Siddiqi, the court addressed the relevance of Agent Hunt's credibility in relation to Perez’s testimony, determining that any evidence to impeach Hunt would not likely lead to an acquittal for Mejia. Consequently, Mejia's motion for a new trial was denied. Mejia also argued that the district court abused its discretion by not granting a downward departure based on his family circumstances and his law-abiding behavior post-conviction. The court noted that decisions against departing from sentencing Guidelines are typically not appealable, except where a judge mistakenly believes they lack the authority to do so. In this instance, the district court acknowledged its authority but deemed Mejia’s situation insufficiently unique for a downward departure. Thus, the appeal regarding the refusal for a downward departure was dismissed, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. Additionally, it was clarified that Rule 33 motions based on newly discovered evidence must be filed within three years of the verdict.