Daynel Rodriguez-Penton v. United States
905 F.3d 481
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Rodriguez-Penton, a Cuban lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and was sentenced (initially 121 months, later reduced). He alleges he only learned of deportation risk after sentencing.
- Trial counsel (Butler) met multiple times with the client (with Spanish interpreters) and, according to counsel, told him he likely would not be deported; Rodriguez-Penton testified counsel never discussed deportation.
- At plea hearing the court did not advise Rodriguez-Penton of immigration consequences; counsel answered a detainer question in a way that left ambiguity.
- Rodriguez-Penton appealed and lost on direct review; then filed a § 2255 ineffective-assistance claim asserting counsel failed to advise him about immigration consequences of pleading guilty.
- The magistrate judge assumed deficient performance but found no Strickland prejudice under Hill v. Lockhart because Rodriguez-Penton said he would not have insisted on trial. The district court adopted that disposition.
- This Court granted a COA, considered intervening Supreme Court decisions (Frye, Lafler, Lee, Padilla), and reversed and remanded, holding the district court applied an incomplete prejudice framework.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez-Penton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to advise about deportation risk | Butler failed to inform or downplayed deportation risk; that breached Padilla duty | Counsel relied on common practice and belief that Cuban nationals rarely are deported; no clear guidance at the time | Court assumed deficiency (Padilla requires advising noncitizen clients of immigration risks) |
| What showing of prejudice is required when counsel fails to advise a noncitizen of immigration consequences at plea stage | Prejudice can be shown if the defendant would have negotiated for a non-deportation plea or otherwise made a different plea decision | District court applied Hill and required proof defendant would have insisted on trial (no prejudice shown) | Hill is not exclusive; prejudice may be shown by demonstrating reasonable probability of a more favorable plea, or that decisionmaking was infected (per Frye, Lafler, Lee) |
| Whether proving a hypothetical better plea is a permissible route to Strickland prejudice | He may show prejudice by identifying similar pleas or proving he would have bargained for a plea without deportation consequences | Government argues hypothetical plea bargaining is speculative and no remedy is obvious; Hill controls | Court adopts view of several circuits: a showing that, but for deficient advice, defendant would have sought/obtained a non-deportable plea can satisfy prejudice; remand necessary to develop record |
| Whether lack of a clear present remedy defeats a finding of prejudice | Rodriguez-Penton contends absence of an immediate remedy does not negate prejudice if outcome of plea process was infected | Government contends no available remedy (court cannot force prosecution to offer pleas) so prejudice cannot be shown | Court rejects automatic denial for lack of obvious remedy; distinguishes available relief from what was available at plea time and remands to develop facts about realistic alternatives |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice in guilty-plea context requires reasonable probability defendant would have insisted on trial)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen clients about immigration consequences of pleas)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (prejudice can be shown by demonstrating a more favorable end result from a different plea or plea offer)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (ineffective-assistance claims may entitle defendant to plea-related relief where counsel’s errors affected plea process)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (prejudice may be shown by demonstrating counsel’s errors affected the defendant’s decisionmaking about plea v. trial)