Jose C. Quinones is now in a puertorican jail. He signed a guilty plea for two first degree murder. Of course, he signed because his attorney told to do so. If Jose did the crimes like he pleaded, there should not be a problem with that. The problem came because the defense counsel has witnesses of a self-defense reaction. The two "victims" were attacking Jose.
There was a lot of evidence to go to a trial to get a lesser crime or an aquital, but his former attorney choosed to betray him, and not to go to a trial. He practically forced him to sign, telling him that there is no chance to get something better.
Jose, was a peaceful policeman, and the attorney had many Jose's nice character witnesses. One of the "victims" had previous violent criminal record. There is a lot of contradictions of the principal prosecutor's witnesses. However, the day that he signed the guilty plea was a terrible one; he was confuse, because the person that he trusted to defend him choosed not to go to a trial. Why?
I have evidence that the attorney was not prepared in that date. Personal notes indicates he has no time to prepare the case. What a good (not an excellent) lawyer should do in that situation?
I am the new lawyer for Jose. I submited a petition for a new trial (I think that it should be a petition for just a trial) as a post conviction remedy. My principal argument was that there is a violation of one of the finest rights of the citizens of the United States (In terms of individual rights and others means, Puerto Rico, is part of America): the right to a defense counsel. The judge denied it. She argued that before Jose sign the guilty plea, she asked him if his decision was an intelligent one. Please do not laugh. I am preparing an appeal.
Because my language is Spanish, excuse me for the errors.