Summary
The Second Circuit reverses the denial of Lavellous Purcell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition and remands for further proceedings. The court holds that appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge venue as to Count Two, involving transportation of a victim in interstate commerce for prostitution, after successfully challenging venue as to Count One. The court declines to apply the concurrent sentence doctrine.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the concurrent sentence doctrine should prevent review of Purcell's § 2255 challenge to his Count Two conviction.
- Whether appellate counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to challenge venue on Count Two.
- Whether Purcell was prejudiced because a venue challenge would likely have resulted in reversal of the Count Two conviction.
Holdings
- The court declined to apply the concurrent sentence doctrine because it could not conclude that vacatur of Count Two would have no effect on the time Purcell would remain in custody or that he would suffer no adverse collateral consequences from leaving the conviction unreviewed.
- Appellate counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge venue as to Count Two while pursuing weaker arguments, where the omitted venue issue was significant, obvious from the trial record, and unsupported by any plausible strategic explanation.
- The record did not support venue in the Southern District of New York for Count Two, which charged transportation of Vasquez in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution.
- Purcell established prejudice because there was a reasonable probability that a venue challenge raised on direct appeal would have succeeded and resulted in reversal of the Count Two conviction.
Key quotations
“Because appellate counsel “omitted significant and obvious issues,” Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir. 1994), which would likely have resulted in the reversal of his conviction as to Count Two, the district court’s order denying Purcell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.” (3)
“We find that the failure to object to venue as to Count Two constituted objectively unreasonable performance because counsel omitted a “significant and obvious” issue while “pursuing issues that were clearly and significantly weaker.”” (14)
“But for Purcell’s appellate counsel’s failure to raise a venue challenge on Count Two, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his direct appeal would have been different.” (20)
Factual background
Between 2012 and 2017, Purcell operated a commercial sex business and recruited women from across the country to work as prostitutes. The relevant Count Two conviction concerned Samantha Vasquez, whose movements and prostitution work were documented through hotel receipts, social-media messages, and online advertisements. The record identified Vasquez in Brooklyn, Raleigh, Virginia Beach, and San Jose, but contained no evidence that she entered the Southern District of New York in connection with her work for Purcell.
Procedural history
Purcell was convicted on five federal sex-trafficking-related counts and sentenced to 216 months' imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Second Circuit reversed Count One for improper venue but affirmed the remaining counts, treating a venue challenge to Count Two as abandoned. After remand and reimposition of the sentence, Purcell filed a § 2255 petition. The district court denied relief, and the Second Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Further proceedings consistent with the opinion, following reversal of the order denying Purcell's § 2255 petition.