Mendoza v. United States
774 F. Supp. 2d 791
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Petitioner Mendoza seeks coram nobis relief nearly ten years after a conviction became final.
- Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) held counsel must inform noncitizen pleas of deportation risks, forming basis for Mendoza's claim.
- Mendoza pled guilty in 2001 to identification document fraud, with a plea colloquy that included deportation as a possible consequence.
- Sentence: two years of supervised probation with minimal jail time; Mendoza completed sentence without direct appeal.
- Mendoza now faces potential deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) based on the conviction.
- Government concedes coram nobis prerequisites are met for three elements; dispute centers on fundamental error and prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Padilla retroactive to coram nobis review? | Padilla should apply retroactively under Teague exceptions. | Padilla is not retroactive on collateral review. | Padilla retroactivity not applied; coram nobis denied on retroactivity ground. |
| Did Padilla impose a fundamental error under coram nobis even if retroactive? | Counsel's failure to inform of deportation risk is fundamental error. | Even with Padilla, may fail Strickland prejudice. | Irrelevant because Padilla not retroactive here; alternative merits not reached. |
| Assuming Padilla retroactive, did Mendoza suffer Strickland prejudice? | Counsel failed to inform of deportation risk before plea. | Record shows Mendoza understood deportation risk during Rule 11; prejudice lacking. | Prejudice not shown; Mendoza acknowledged deportation risk during plea colloquy, defeating prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. United States, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (coram nobis available for errors of the most fundamental character)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity of new Supreme Court rules on collateral review)
- Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406 (2004) (watershed rule exception to Teague retroactivity)
- Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461 (1993) (Teague; old vs. new rule framework)
- O'Dell v. Netherland, 95 F.3d 1214 (4th Cir.1996) (reasonableness of petitioner's claim under Teague framework)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (Teague framework; substantive vs. procedural rules)