Hernandez v. United States
778 F.3d 1230
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rodolfo Hernandez pleaded guilty to one conspiracy count and three possession-with-intent-to-distribute counts involving large quantities of marijuana; he was later sentenced to 120 months and five years supervised release.
- At sentencing his counsel told the court she had advised Hernandez that, based on her experience, Cuban defendants generally are not issued immigration detainers and generally are not deported.
- After conviction, while incarcerated, DHS issued an immigration detainer against Hernandez. He filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for giving incorrect immigration advice and saying he would not have pleaded guilty but for that advice.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning Padilla v. Kentucky did not apply because it was decided after Hernandez’s plea and that counsel cannot be faulted for failing to foresee a change in the law.
- The Eleventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability as to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing and considered whether Hernandez alleged facts that, if true, entitled him to relief under Padilla/Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla governs review of counsel's advice given before Padilla | Hernandez: counsel’s pre-Padilla advice about deportation can be judged under Padilla for deficiency | Govt/district court: Padilla shouldn’t govern because it was decided after the plea; counsel cannot be deficient for failing to foresee a change in law | Court: Padilla governs review; failure to anticipate a change in law is different from deficient advice about immigration consequences |
| Whether counsel’s advice was deficient | Hernandez: counsel told him deportation was unlikely despite deportation being presumptively mandatory for drug-trafficking convictions | Govt: counsel’s statements were not deficient given timing/experience | Court: Allegations that counsel misadvised (contradicted by record statement) suffice to allege deficiency under Padilla |
| Whether Hernandez alleged prejudice under Strickland/Padilla | Hernandez: he would have gone to trial rather than plead guilty to avoid deportation and family separation | Govt: plea was voluntary; no reasonable probability he would have rejected plea | Court: Allegation that preserving right to remain was more important than incarceration and that he would have rationally refused plea is sufficient to allege prejudice and entitle him to a hearing |
| Whether district court erred in denying evidentiary hearing | Hernandez: factual allegations, if true, entitle him to relief and require a hearing | District court: allegations were untimely relative to Padilla and counsel can’t be faulted for law change | Court: District court abused its discretion; must hold an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client whether plea carries a risk of deportation; clear deportation consequences require correct advice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard for entitlement to evidentiary hearing on § 2255: allegations that, if true, would entitle petitioner to relief)
- Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2002) (same evidentiary-hearing entitlement standard)
- Holmes v. United States, 876 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1989) (no hearing required where allegations are patently frivolous, unsupported generalizations, or contradicted by record)