crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Talks & Media

3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

In the first federal court of appeals decision to address the merits of whether Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), applies to convictions that became final prior to the date on which it was issued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Padilla is retroactive. United States v. Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. (3d Cir. June 29, 2011) (Fuentes, Chagares, and Pollak, J.). Judge Pollack wrote the panel’s decision; Judge Chagares concurred in part and dissented in part.

This case involved an LPR who pleaded guilty to simple possession of a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a), in 2004. He claimed that his plea attorney did not inform him of the immigration consequences of entering a plea, thus he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 5. Because he long ago completed his sentence and is no longer in custody, he filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in an effort to vacate his conviction. Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 5 & n.4.

The Third Circuit first addressed the Supreme Court’s retroactivity analysis set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), in which the Court held that a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure is not applied retroactively except in two narrow circumstances. (I have discussed Teague in greater detail previously.) Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 11.

The government argued that Padilla recognized a new rule for two reasons.  First, the government claimed that Padilla extended the Court’s long-standing ineffective assistance of counsel framework announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), “to a non-criminal setting—namely, the failure of criminal defense counsel to advise a client of the  mandatory civil removal consequences of pleading guilty….” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 12. “Second, the government argues that Padilla ‘clearly broke new ground regarding counsel’s duty to advise her client about [removal], and was not ‘dictated’ by prior Supreme Court precedent.’” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 13.

The Third Circuit rejected both arguments. Rather than interpret Padilla as extending Strickland to a civil setting as the government urged, the court explained that “Padilla reaffirmed defense counsel’s obligations to the criminal defendant during the plea process, a critical stage in the proceedings.” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 13.

And rather than adopt the government’s argument that Padilla departed from existing Supreme Court precedent, the Third Circuit concluded that “the Court straightforwardly applied the Strickland rule—and the norms of the legal profession that insist upon adequate warning to criminal defendants of immigration consequences—to the facts of Jose Padilla’s case.” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 14.

As many lower courts have held (about which I have written on several occasions), the Third Circuit determined that Padilla is merely an application of Strickland to a new factual context. Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 14. This does not make Padilla a new rule of criminal procedure. On the contrary, this means that Padilla is “a new application of an ‘old rule’ in a manner dictated by precedent.” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 18. Accordingly, the court “h[e]ld that, because Padilla followed directly from Strickland and long-established professional norms, it is an ‘old rule’ for Teague purposes and is retroactively applicable on collateral review.” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 19.

Having decided that Padilla applies retroactively to Orocio’s conviction the court then turned to the merits of his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. To satisfy Strickland’s two-prong test for determining ineffective assistance of counsel a petitioner must show, first, that plea counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness (i.e., that counsel’s performance was deficient) and, second, that that deficient performance prejudiced the petitioner.

The court had no trouble concluding that Orocio’s plea attorney did not meet an objective standard of reasonableness. Assuming the truth of Orocio’s statement in his affidavit that his attorney “did not inform him of the immigration consequences of the proposed guilty plea,” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 5, the Third Circuit explained that “it is beyond cavil that Mr. Orocio’s counsel was constitutionally deficient under the first prong of the Strickland inquiry if, as is alleged, he did not advise Mr. Orocio of the adverse immigration consequences of his guilty plea to a controlled substance offense….” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 23.

The court devoted more time to Strickland’s prejudice prong in part because it took the highly unusual step of overturning a prior Third Circuit decision. In United States v. Nino, 879 F.2d 101 (3d Cir. 1989), the Third Circuit imposed a “requirement that a defendant affirmatively show that he would have been acquitted in order to establish prejudice….” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 25 (discussing Nino, 879 F.2d at 105).

An acquittal requirement, the court concluded, is not supported by the Supreme Court’s ineffective assistance jurisprudence post-Padilla. “The Supreme Court, however, requires only that a defendant have rationally gone to trial in the first place, and it has never required an affirmative demonstration of likely acquittal at such a trial as the sine qua non of prejudice,” the court explained. Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 24.

“Instead, ‘to obtain relief on this type of claim, a petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances,’ and a rational decision not to plead guilty does not focus solely on whether a defendant would have been found guilty at trial….” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 24-25 (quoting Padilla, 130 S. Ct. at 1485). As such, Nino’s acquittal requirement “is no longer good law.” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 25.

The proper prejudice inquiry, the court added, “must focus on whether Mr. Orocio, if made aware of the dire immigration consequences of the proposed guilty plea, could have reasonably chosen to go to trial even though he faced a drug distribution charge constituting an aggravated felony with a 10-year minimum sentence.” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 26-27.

The court opined that going to trial would be reasonable under these circumstances. “For the alien defendant most concerned with remaining in the United States, especially a legal permanent resident, it is not at all unreasonable to go to trial and risk a ten-year sentence and guaranteed removal, but with the chance of acquittal and the right to remain in the United States, instead of pleading guilty to an offense that, while not an aggravated felony, carries ‘presumptively mandatory’ removal consequences.” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 28.

Accordingly, “assuming Mr. Orocio can establish at an evidentiary hearing the facts that he has alleged in his affidavit, Mr. Orocio will have shown prejudice in the Strickland sense….” Orocio, No. 10-1231, slip op. at 31. The court remanded to the district court.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on July 12, 2011 on 9:00 am 29 Comments
Filed Under: 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, conviction, Padilla v. Kentucky, post-conviction relief, right to counsel

Comments

  1. back pain stretches says

    April 5, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    back pain stretches

    Really revealing look onward to visiting again.|

    Reply
  2. bingo halls in nj says

    May 12, 2013 at 3:55 am

    mobile bingo sites

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  3. phentermine usage says

    May 12, 2013 at 7:08 am

    phentermine buy online

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  4. electronic cigarette explodes says

    May 12, 2013 at 7:10 am

    ecig

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  5. mobile bingo says

    May 12, 2013 at 8:34 am

    free mobile bingo

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  6. garcinia says

    May 12, 2013 at 10:07 am

    garcinia pure

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  7. buy real twitter followers says

    May 17, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    twitter followers

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  8. Driven Sports Craze says

    May 17, 2013 at 1:40 pm



    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  9. news for jax says

    May 17, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    donald ray bernard

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  10. lifelock promotional code says

    May 17, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    lifelock promo code

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  11. phentermine says

    May 17, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    phentermine vs adderall

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  12. 7 keto says

    May 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    7 keto kolozzeum

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  13. debt consolidation loans says

    May 17, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    consolidate debt

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  14. mark ward kia says

    May 17, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    brian spear

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  15. twitter followers says

    May 17, 2013 at 3:03 pm

    buy twitter hack

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  16. donald r. bernard says

    May 17, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    scott greenlaw politician

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  17. payday loans online says

    May 17, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    paydayloans

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  18. fAke oAkLeyS says

    May 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    fAke oAkLeyS

    Wow! It’s also nice post regarding JavaScript, I am actually keen of learning JavaScript. thanks admin

    Reply
  19. Cheap Oakley Sunglasses says

    July 9, 2013 at 2:24 am

    Cheap Oakley Sunglasses

    I would like to know when you write this article is what kind of mood, why would you write this article, also written so splendid, is that I can learn. I think I could record something like you.

    Reply
  20. Cheap Oakley For Sale says

    July 11, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    Cheap Oakley For Sale

    If you are going away to watch comical videos online then I suggest you to pay a quick visit this website, it carries truly thus funny not only movies but also extra material.

    Reply
  21. Cheap Oakley fuel Cell says

    July 13, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    Cheap Oakley fuel Cell

    Very shortly this website will be famous amid all blog users, due to it’s pleasant posts

    Reply
  22. Fake Oakley Big Taco says

    July 31, 2013 at 6:18 am

    Fake Oakley Big Taco

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  23. Cheap Oakley M Frame says

    August 1, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    Cheap Oakley M Frame

    crImmigration.com: 3 Cir: Padilla retroactive; overturns prejudice prong precedent

    Reply
  24. スニーカー レディース ランキング says

    November 15, 2013 at 6:48 am

    スニーカー レディース ランキング

    ニューバランス スニーカー

    Reply
  25. ugg boots says

    December 25, 2013 at 1:28 am

    ugg boots

    where can i get uggs in new york

    Reply
  26. maillot losc says

    March 8, 2014 at 12:06 am

    maillot losc

    Often I do not established up on weblogs, even so i would like to condition that this place up truly pressured me to do this! critically fantastic put up

    Reply
  27. r4 pour 3ds says

    March 12, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    r4 pour 3ds

    Excellent Data sharing .. I am extremely content to read through this article .. many thanks for giving us go through data.Great good. I value this publish.

    Reply
  28. vdwicytaabs says

    April 6, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    vdwicytaabs

    Agree with your post. Do you can keep update your post. I want back. thank you!

    Reply
  29. walofkcl says

    April 8, 2014 at 2:56 am

    walofkcl

    Agree with your mind. Do you can keep update your post. I want back. bye!

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court says Biden can end MPP
  • Uvalde massacre & immigration law aid
  • Mistakes aren’t reviewable, Supreme Court says
  • ICE prosecutorial discretion guidance
  • Supreme Court again considers ICE’s detention powers
  • Troubled contractor gets $180 million to hold young migrants

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.