{"id":316,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=316"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"baez-diaz-united-states-2255-strickland-plea-advice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=316","title":{"rendered":"Baez-Diaz v. United States \u2014 S.D. Cal. Denies \u00a72255 Motion Despite Counsel’s Sentencing-Guideline Miscalculation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Baez-Diaz v. United States<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:24-cv-02217<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Section 2255 motion, ineffective assistance of counsel, Strickland v. Washington, plea bargaining, sentencing guidelines<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Francisco Baez-Diaz was caught in June 2023 jumping off a jet ski near Imperial Beach. Border Patrol officers found him hiding in a vehicle in a wet suit, and he admitted he was a Mexican citizen who had previously been deported four times. He was charged with attempted reentry of a removed alien. His lawyer, Mara Gonzalez Souto, presented an “acquired citizenship” defense at trial \u2014 a legal theory based on his grandfather’s birth certificate and historical railroad employment records. The jury rejected the defense and convicted him. The court sentenced him to 48 months in prison.<\/p>\n

Before trial, the government offered Baez-Diaz a “fast-track” plea deal, a commonly used early-resolution program in border districts. Gonzalez Souto told him the government’s recommendation under the deal would be roughly 18 to 24 months, that he would likely receive 18 months at the low end, and that if he went to trial his guideline range would be 27 to 41 months depending on whether he received credit for accepting responsibility. After he was convicted, however, the actual guideline range turned out to be much higher \u2014 51 to 63 months. In other words, the lawyer materially undercalculated his post-trial guideline exposure.<\/p>\n

Baez-Diaz then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2255, the federal statute that allows a prisoner to attack his conviction or sentence in the same court that imposed it. He argued that the lawyer’s miscalculation was ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The court held an evidentiary hearing in October 2025, where both Baez-Diaz and his lawyer testified.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied the \u00a72255 motion. It ruled that even if the lawyer’s miscalculation was “deficient performance” under the first part of the Strickland v. Washington<\/em> standard, the petitioner could not show “prejudice” \u2014 the second required element. To prove prejudice on a rejected plea offer, the law (under Lafler v. Cooper<\/em> and related Supreme Court cases) requires the defendant to show that, with correct advice, there is a reasonable probability he would have accepted the offer, the court would have approved it, and the resulting sentence would have been less severe than the one actually imposed.<\/p>\n

The judge made detailed credibility findings after the evidentiary hearing. He believed the lawyer’s testimony that she had advised Baez-Diaz of the risk of a higher sentence at trial, including a possible range up to 41 months. He did not believe Baez-Diaz’s claims that the lawyer promised him a sentence below the fast-track offer or even as low as “12 months and 1 day.” Critically, the petitioner himself testified that he was willing to plead guilty only if the sentence would be less than 30 months \u2014 yet he rejected an 18-month offer that fell below that line. Because Baez-Diaz had already rejected a deal that satisfied his stated acceptable sentence, the court found no reasonable probability that better advice would have led him to accept any plea offer. Without that probability, he could not show prejudice and could not win on his Sixth Amendment claim.<\/p>\n

The court also denied a certificate of appealability \u2014 the procedural permission a \u00a72255 petitioner needs to take his case to the Ninth Circuit \u2014 because it concluded no reasonable jurist would debate the prejudice ruling.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n