Mario Mendoza v. United States
690 F.3d 157
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Mendoza, born in Ecuador, lives in New Jersey, pleaded guilty in 2006 to an aggravated felony related to mortgage fraud conspiracy.
- Cavanagh, Mendoza’s counsel, did not warn him that the conviction would trigger mandatory deportation.
- Sentencing on September 11, 2006 imposed two years of probation and $100,000 restitution; cooperation with immigration officials was required as a probation condition.
- Removal proceedings were initiated after sentencing; Mendoza faced deportation following his plea.
- Mendoza filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in January 2010; Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) resolved the immigration-consequences warning issue in the government’s favor for retroactivity purposes, prompting withdrawal of that motion.
- Mendoza filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis on June 8, 2011; the district court denied as untimely and for lack of innocence; Mendoza appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mendoza's delay bars coram nobis relief | Mendoza argues Padilla and unsettled law justify delay | Government argues delay was unreasonable and lacks sound reasons | Delay unreasonable; coram nobis denied |
| Whether, even if timely, withdrawal of the plea would be viable | Mendoza would have sought a better deal or trial due to deportation risk | Government contends withdrawal unlikely; no innocence shown; prejudice to government | Even liberally viewed, withdrawal would likely fail |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1989) (coram nobis relief available post-sentence if sound reasons exist)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1954) (sound reasons standard for coram nobis)
- Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1996) (sound reasons stricter than §2255 standards)
- United States v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1947) (constitutional concerns and limitations on coram nobis)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1998) (utility cannot constitute cause for delay in collateral review)
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (Padilla’s retroactivity addressed; timing of coram nobis relief)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (counsel's duty to warn of plea’s immigration consequences)