Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Espaillat v. United States
Citation: 96 F. App'x 760Docket: No. 03-2020
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; April 30, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
The judgment of the district court is affirmed regarding Miguel Espaillat's appeal of the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Espaillat had previously been released under conditions for this charge but was later incarcerated in New York on a separate conviction, during which a detainer was lodged against him for violating his release. Upon his release, he pleaded guilty to the federal charge but did not appeal. In his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Espaillat claimed that he was not tried within the 180-day period required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise this issue. The district court denied his motion and his request for a certificate of appealability (COA). The appellate court granted a COA on specific issues regarding the applicability of the IAD, the knowledge and responsibilities of defense counsel, the validity of Espaillat’s guilty plea due to potential counsel ineffectiveness, and the appropriate relief. The appellate court reviewed the denial de novo and noted ambiguities regarding whether the detainer was based on an “untried indictment” as required for IAD applicability. However, even if the IAD applied, there was no evidence of a speedy trial request being delivered, meaning the 180-day period had not started. Additionally, IAD claims are not cognizable under § 2255. Espaillat's argument regarding his counsel’s ineffectiveness related to the IAD claim was outside the scope of the COA and was not addressed. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.