132 F.4th 563
1st Cir.2025Background
- Walter Aceituno, a Guatemalan citizen and former lawful U.S. permanent resident, pled guilty in 2014 to drug-trafficking offenses in Rhode Island.
- His attorneys informed him that his plea would result in deportation, but not specifically about a permanent bar on reentry.
- After sentencing, Aceituno was deported to Guatemala, learned of the permanent reentry bar from ICE, and did not challenge his conviction for over eight years.
- Aceituno reentered the U.S. illegally in 2019, was detained, and unsuccessfully sought immigration relief.
- In 2023, Aceituno, via appointed counsel, filed for a writ of coram nobis to vacate his 2014 conviction, alleging ineffective counsel for not advising of a permanent reentry bar.
- The district court granted the writ, but the government appealed, contesting both the legal and factual bases for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Petition | Delay explained by ongoing immigration challenges and attempts to reunite with family | Delay was unreasonable; Aceituno could have challenged conviction sooner | Delay was not reasonably explained; fails timeliness precondition |
| Ineffective Assistance (Padilla) | Counsel needed to advise of permanent reentry bar, not just deportation | Padilla only requires notice of deportation risk, which was given | No ineffectiveness; Padilla met by informing of certain deportation |
| Factual Support for Ineffectiveness | Attorney admitted should have given broader immigration advice | Attorney testified he complied with Padilla; no clear deficiency | No clear error; record supports counsel’s performance was reasonable |
| Equitable Justice of Granting Relief | Justice requires setting aside conviction due to fundamental error | Equities (finality, guilty plea reduction, delay) do not support relief | Equities do not justify relief; writ improperly granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. George, 676 F.3d 249 (1st Cir. 2012) (sets coram nobis standard and its rarity)
- Woodward v. United States, 905 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2018) (elements for coram nobis)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client of deportation risk for guilty pleas)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (coram nobis available to address deprivation of counsel)
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (coram nobis limited to extraordinary cases)