## Facts

- A Mexican court found Alexander Eugenio Moskovits guilty of violating Mexico’s drug laws.
- During the Mexican pretrial and trial process, the applicable Mexican procedures gave Moskovits only two opportunities to confront his accusers, and on both occasions he had no access to an attorney.
- After returning to the United States, Moskovits was convicted in federal court of narcotics offenses, including a cocaine possession-with-intent-to-distribute count involving more than 500 grams.
- The governing federal statute imposed a five-year mandatory minimum on that count, but required a ten-year mandatory minimum if the defendant had a prior felony drug conviction “under federal or state or foreign law.”
- The government relied on Moskovits’s prior Mexican drug conviction to trigger the higher mandatory minimum, and the district court imposed a longer prison sentence based on that foreign conviction.
- The federal judgment was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Moskovits then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to collaterally attack the lengthened portion of his federal sentence, arguing (among other things) that the Mexican conviction was obtained through procedures inconsistent with basic U.S. constitutional protections and that his sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and challenge the use of the Mexican conviction.

## Issues

1. May a prior foreign felony drug conviction be used to trigger a higher federal mandatory minimum when the foreign proceedings denied the defendant basic protections associated with counsel and confrontation?
2. Did sentencing counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and challenge the use of the Mexican conviction when it determined whether the federal mandatory minimum would be five or ten years?
3. If counsel performed deficiently, did that failure prejudice Moskovits by leading to a longer mandatory sentence?

## Decision

- The court granted § 2255 relief as to the portion of Moskovits’s sentence that had been increased based on the Mexican conviction.
- The court concluded that the Mexican conviction—obtained under procedures that denied Moskovits access to counsel during the limited confrontations permitted—could not be used to impose the higher federal mandatory minimum.
- The court further concluded that sentencing counsel’s failure to investigate and contest the foreign conviction’s use, despite its direct effect on the mandatory minimum, fell below minimal professional standards and satisfied the ineffective-assistance framework.
- The court set aside the increased mandatory-minimum component and directed that Moskovits receive sentencing relief without reliance on the Mexican conviction as the triggering predicate, while leaving the underlying federal convictions intact.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress permits prior domestic or foreign drug convictions to trigger higher federal penalties, the Constitution still limits reliance on a prior judgment obtained through procedures that are fundamentally unreliable by U.S. standards.
- A foreign conviction used to impose a longer mandatory sentence may be rejected where the defendant was denied access to counsel at stages functionally equivalent to critical stages and had only sharply limited confrontation opportunities without counsel.
- Ineffective-assistance claims related to sentencing are analyzed under Strickland v. Washington: (1) deficient performance and (2) prejudice.
- Where a single prior conviction determines whether a mandatory minimum is doubled, reasonable professional assistance includes investigating that conviction and, where warranted, objecting to its use.
- Prejudice is shown when there is a reasonable probability that, had counsel raised a proper challenge, the court would not have applied the higher mandatory minimum and the defendant would have faced a lower required sentence.

## Conclusion

United States v. Moskovits holds that a prior Mexican drug conviction obtained through procedures denying the defendant access to counsel during the limited opportunities to confront accusers could not be used to impose a doubled federal mandatory minimum, and that sentencing counsel’s failure to investigate and object to the conviction’s use warranted § 2255 relief and resentencing without that foreign predicate.


United States v. Moskovits, 784 F. Supp. 183 (1991)