1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG M. MAYNARD, Case No.: 22-CR-1503-TWR 25-CV-0660-TWR 12 Defendant-Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Plaintiff-Respondent. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Craig M. Maynard’s Motion to Vacate under 18 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 355), as well as the United States of America’s 19 Response in Opposition (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 364) to the Motion. For the reasons set forth 20 below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On June 30, 2022, a Grand Jury in the Southern District of California returned an 23 Indictment charging Defendant and several others with multiple drug and firearm 24 violations. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a Plea Agreement to violating 25 Counts 1 (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846—conspiracy to distribute controlled substances), 5 26 (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—felon in possession of a firearm), and 9 (18 U.S.C. 27 § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)—possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime) of 28 the Indictment. (ECF Nos. 277, 279.) As part of Defendant’s Plea Agreement, Defendant 1 represented that he had a “full opportunity to discuss all the facts and circumstances of this 2 case with defense counsel and has a clear understanding of the charges and the 3 consequences of th[e] plea.” (ECF No. 279 (“Plea Agreement”) at VI.A.) Defendant also 4 recognized that the “Government ha[d] not made and [would] not make any representation 5 about what sentence Defendant w[ould] receive.” (Id. at IX.) On March 15, 2024, the 6 Court sentenced Defendant to “240 months as to count 1, 120 months as to count 5, and 5 7 years as to count 9 to run consecutive to both counts 1 and 5 for a total of 300 months; all 8 to run concurrent with the sentence imposed in 21CR1266-TWR.” (ECF No. 315.) 9 Attorney Frank R. Balistrieri represented Defendant from his arraignment on July 6, 10 2022, until January 20, 2023. (See ECF Nos. 11, 123.) On January 20, 2023, the Court 11 granted Defendant’s Motion to substitute Attorney John Lanahan for Attorney Frank R. 12 Balistrieri. (See ECF No. 123.) Assistant United States Attorney Janaki Gandhi Chopra 13 (“AUSA Chopra”) was lead counsel for the United States. (See ECF No. 18.) Defendant 14 also had a second criminal case, 21-cr-1266-TWR. In 21-cr-1266-TWR, Attorney Frank 15 R. Balistrieri represented Defendant from his initial appearance through sentencing. (See 16 generally Docket in 21-cr-1266-TWR.) AUSA Chopra was also lead counsel for the 17 United States in 21-cr-1266-TWR. (See id.) 18 On March 17, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion, which alleges that 19 Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because his “initially appointed 20 counsel Frank R. Balistrieri failed to inform [him] that [he] needed to provide additional 21 information to the Government leading to the arrest of a co-defendant in order for the 22 Government to recommend a sentence of fifteen years in prison to be served concurrently 23 with the seventy-eight months in prison imposed in case number 21cr1266-TWR.” (Mot. 24 at 6.) Defendant waived his attorney-client privilege for the purposes of this Motion. (See 25 ECF No. 362.) Mr. Balistrieri provided a declaration to the Government. (See ECF No. 26 364 Exh. 1 (“Balistrieri Decl.”).) 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Legal Standard 3 “The customary procedure for raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in 4 this circuit is by collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Mal, 942 F.2d 5 682, 689 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[Claims 6 of ineffective assistance of counsel] normally should be raised in habeas corpus 7 proceedings”). “To succeed on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant 8 must show that their attorney’s performance was deficient and prejudicial.” United States 9 v. Osorio-Arellanes, 112 F.4th 647, 662 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 10 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). “When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness 11 of counsel’s assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below 12 an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88. “[S]crutiny of 13 counsel’s performance must be highly deferential, and the defendant must overcome the 14 presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered 15 sound trial strategy.” United States v. Juliano, 12 F.4th 937, 940 (9th Cir. 2021). 16 II. Analysis 17 A. Deficient Performance 18 In his Motion, Defendant argues his “initially appointed counsel Frank R. Balistrieri 19 failed to inform [him] that [he] needed to provide additional information to the Government 20 leading to the arrest of a co-defendant in order for the Government to recommend a 21 sentence of fifteen years in prison to be served concurrently with the seventy-eight months 22 in prison imposed in case number 21cr1266-TWR.” (Mot. at 6.) 23 The record demonstrates that Mr. Balistrieri met with AUSA Chopra and proposed 24 that the Government allow Defendant “to plead to Counts 1 and 9 of the Indictment and 25 that the parties agree to a Joint Recommendation for 15 years to run concurrent with 21- 26 CR-1266-TWR at the time of sentencing.” (Balistrieri Decl. ¶ 4.) However, Mr. 27 Balistrieri’s suggestion was rejected by AUSA Chopra. (See id.; Opp’n at 5 (stating AUSA 28 Chopra “rejected the 15-year plea proposal”).) Mr. Balistrieri and AUSA Chopra also 1 separately discussed “the possibility of [Defendant] receiving credit in locating a co- 2 defendant,” but that was not connected to the suggested 15-year concurrent sentence. 3 (Balistrieri Decl. ¶ 4; Opp’n at 5.) Mr. Balistrieri mentioned his conversation with AUSA 4 Chopra to Attorney John Lanahan, the attorney that Defendant retained on January 20, 5 2023. (Balistrieri Decl. ¶ 6.) However, it was not his “intention to give Mr. Lanahan the 6 impression that [his] discussion with AUSA Chopra had risen to the level of an agreement.” 7 (Id.) 8 Because the record illustrates that there was no “agreement” between Mr. Balistrieri 9 and AUSA Chopra, Mr. Balistrieri could not have been deficient in failing to inform 10 Defendant about what information he needed to provide for a recommended 15-year 11 concurrent sentence. Further, the record illustrates that the suggestion of a 15-year 12 concurrent sentence and credit for locating a co-defendant were separate discussions. 13 Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Balistrieri’s performance could not have been 14 deficient in failing to inform Defendant that he “needed to provide additional information 15 to the Government leading to the arrest of a co-defendant in order for the Government to 16 recommend a sentence of fifteen years in prison” because that option was never available 17 to Defendant. Because Mr. Balistrieri’s performance was not deficient, Defendant’s 18 ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. 19 B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG M. MAYNARD, Case No.: 22-CR-1503-TWR 25-CV-0660-TWR 12 Defendant-Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Plaintiff-Respondent. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Craig M. Maynard’s Motion to Vacate under 18 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 355), as well as the United States of America’s 19 Response in Opposition (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 364) to the Motion. For the reasons set forth 20 below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On June 30, 2022, a Grand Jury in the Southern District of California returned an 23 Indictment charging Defendant and several others with multiple drug and firearm 24 violations. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a Plea Agreement to violating 25 Counts 1 (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846—conspiracy to distribute controlled substances), 5 26 (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—felon in possession of a firearm), and 9 (18 U.S.C. 27 § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)—possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime) of 28 the Indictment. (ECF Nos. 277, 279.) As part of Defendant’s Plea Agreement, Defendant 1 represented that he had a “full opportunity to discuss all the facts and circumstances of this 2 case with defense counsel and has a clear understanding of the charges and the 3 consequences of th[e] plea.” (ECF No. 279 (“Plea Agreement”) at VI.A.) Defendant also 4 recognized that the “Government ha[d] not made and [would] not make any representation 5 about what sentence Defendant w[ould] receive.” (Id. at IX.) On March 15, 2024, the 6 Court sentenced Defendant to “240 months as to count 1, 120 months as to count 5, and 5 7 years as to count 9 to run consecutive to both counts 1 and 5 for a total of 300 months; all 8 to run concurrent with the sentence imposed in 21CR1266-TWR.” (ECF No. 315.) 9 Attorney Frank R. Balistrieri represented Defendant from his arraignment on July 6, 10 2022, until January 20, 2023. (See ECF Nos. 11, 123.) On January 20, 2023, the Court 11 granted Defendant’s Motion to substitute Attorney John Lanahan for Attorney Frank R. 12 Balistrieri. (See ECF No. 123.) Assistant United States Attorney Janaki Gandhi Chopra 13 (“AUSA Chopra”) was lead counsel for the United States. (See ECF No. 18.) Defendant 14 also had a second criminal case, 21-cr-1266-TWR. In 21-cr-1266-TWR, Attorney Frank 15 R. Balistrieri represented Defendant from his initial appearance through sentencing. (See 16 generally Docket in 21-cr-1266-TWR.) AUSA Chopra was also lead counsel for the 17 United States in 21-cr-1266-TWR. (See id.) 18 On March 17, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion, which alleges that 19 Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because his “initially appointed 20 counsel Frank R. Balistrieri failed to inform [him] that [he] needed to provide additional 21 information to the Government leading to the arrest of a co-defendant in order for the 22 Government to recommend a sentence of fifteen years in prison to be served concurrently 23 with the seventy-eight months in prison imposed in case number 21cr1266-TWR.” (Mot. 24 at 6.) Defendant waived his attorney-client privilege for the purposes of this Motion. (See 25 ECF No. 362.) Mr. Balistrieri provided a declaration to the Government. (See ECF No. 26 364 Exh. 1 (“Balistrieri Decl.”).) 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Legal Standard 3 “The customary procedure for raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in 4 this circuit is by collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Mal, 942 F.2d 5 682, 689 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[Claims 6 of ineffective assistance of counsel] normally should be raised in habeas corpus 7 proceedings”). “To succeed on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant 8 must show that their attorney’s performance was deficient and prejudicial.” United States 9 v. Osorio-Arellanes, 112 F.4th 647, 662 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 10 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). “When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness 11 of counsel’s assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below 12 an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88. “[S]crutiny of 13 counsel’s performance must be highly deferential, and the defendant must overcome the 14 presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered 15 sound trial strategy.” United States v. Juliano, 12 F.4th 937, 940 (9th Cir. 2021). 16 II. Analysis 17 A. Deficient Performance 18 In his Motion, Defendant argues his “initially appointed counsel Frank R. Balistrieri 19 failed to inform [him] that [he] needed to provide additional information to the Government 20 leading to the arrest of a co-defendant in order for the Government to recommend a 21 sentence of fifteen years in prison to be served concurrently with the seventy-eight months 22 in prison imposed in case number 21cr1266-TWR.” (Mot. at 6.) 23 The record demonstrates that Mr. Balistrieri met with AUSA Chopra and proposed 24 that the Government allow Defendant “to plead to Counts 1 and 9 of the Indictment and 25 that the parties agree to a Joint Recommendation for 15 years to run concurrent with 21- 26 CR-1266-TWR at the time of sentencing.” (Balistrieri Decl. ¶ 4.) However, Mr. 27 Balistrieri’s suggestion was rejected by AUSA Chopra. (See id.; Opp’n at 5 (stating AUSA 28 Chopra “rejected the 15-year plea proposal”).) Mr. Balistrieri and AUSA Chopra also 1 separately discussed “the possibility of [Defendant] receiving credit in locating a co- 2 defendant,” but that was not connected to the suggested 15-year concurrent sentence. 3 (Balistrieri Decl. ¶ 4; Opp’n at 5.) Mr. Balistrieri mentioned his conversation with AUSA 4 Chopra to Attorney John Lanahan, the attorney that Defendant retained on January 20, 5 2023. (Balistrieri Decl. ¶ 6.) However, it was not his “intention to give Mr. Lanahan the 6 impression that [his] discussion with AUSA Chopra had risen to the level of an agreement.” 7 (Id.) 8 Because the record illustrates that there was no “agreement” between Mr. Balistrieri 9 and AUSA Chopra, Mr. Balistrieri could not have been deficient in failing to inform 10 Defendant about what information he needed to provide for a recommended 15-year 11 concurrent sentence. Further, the record illustrates that the suggestion of a 15-year 12 concurrent sentence and credit for locating a co-defendant were separate discussions. 13 Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Balistrieri’s performance could not have been 14 deficient in failing to inform Defendant that he “needed to provide additional information 15 to the Government leading to the arrest of a co-defendant in order for the Government to 16 recommend a sentence of fifteen years in prison” because that option was never available 17 to Defendant. Because Mr. Balistrieri’s performance was not deficient, Defendant’s 18 ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. 19 B. Prejudice 20 Because there was no agreement between Mr. Balistrieri and AUSA Chopra, 21 Defendant also cannot show prejudice. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (“[D]efendant must 22 show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the 23 result of the proceeding would have been different”). Since there was no potential for 24 Defendant to exchange information about a co-defendant for a recommended 15-year 25 concurrent sentence, there is no reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding 26 would have been different. Moreover, even assuming such an agreement existed, and Mr. 27 Balistrieri was deficient in failing to provide information to Defendant, there is no evidence 28 that this would have changed the result of the proceeding. (See Balistrieri Decl. ¶ 4 (stating 1 the co-defendant was later apprehended through the Government’s own resources).) Thus, 2 Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim also fails under the prejudice prong. 3 III. Evidentiary Hearing 4 A district court may deny a § 2255 Motion without a hearing if “the motion and the 5 files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief[.]” 6 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). An evidentiary hearing is required, however, if the defendant 7 “make[s] specific factual allegations which, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Baumann 8 v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, credibility issues can be 9 “conclusively decided on the basis of documentary testimony and evidence in the record.” 10 Watts v. United States, 841 F.2d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 11 Here, Defendant alleges that Mr. Balistrieri failed to inform him that he “needed to 12 provide additional information to the Government leading to the arrest of a co-defendant 13 in order for the Government to recommend a sentence of fifteen years in prison to be served 14 concurrently with the seventy-eight months in prison imposed in case number 21cr1266- 15 TWR.” (Mot. at 6.) But the record—including Defendant’s signed Plea Agreement, Mr. 16 Balistrieri’s Declaration, and AUSA Chopra’s representations in the Government’s 17 Opposition—conclusively show there was no agreement and that the discussion about 18 locating a co-defendant and the suggestion of a 15-year concurrent sentence were separate. 19 (See Plea Agreement; Balistrieri Decl. ¶ 4; Opp’n at 5.) See Kingsbury v. United States, 20 783 F. App’x 680, 683 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding that the “district court was well equipped 21 to assess the credibility of [the defendant’s] claims without the need to conduct an 22 evidentiary hearing” when the record included the transcript of the defendant’s plea 23 colloquy, his signed written plea agreement, and declarations filed by his attorney). 24 Further, Defendant makes no specific factual allegations that contradict the record. Thus, 25 an evidentiary hearing is not required. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) (permitting a district court 26 to deny an evidentiary hearing where “the motion and the files and records of the case 27 conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief”); United States v. Quan, 789 28 F.2d 711, 715 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Where a prisoner’s motion presents no more than 1 ||conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts and refuted by the record, an evidentiary 2 || hearing is not required.”) (citation omitted). 3 CONCLUSION 4 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Under 5 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 355). Additionally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the 6 || Petition to Vacate under 22 U.S.C. § 2255, filed as ECF No. 1 in Civil Case No. 25-CV- 7 ||660-TWR. In the event Defendant files an appeal, the Court DECLINES TO ISSUE A 8 || CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY because Defendant has not made a substantial 9 ||showing of the denial of a constitutional right and a reasonable jurist would not find the 10 || Court’s ruling debatable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 11 (2003). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 —— 14 || DATED: 3/17/2026 59) {2 D (re 15 Hon. Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28