Renato Debartolo v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10831
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Renato DeBartolo, born in Italy, lived in the U.S. from age 1, never naturalized, married to a U.S. citizen with U.S.-born children; deported to Italy after conviction.
- In 2011 DeBartolo pleaded guilty in federal court to manufacturing >100 marijuana plants (21 U.S.C. § 841), receiving a 25-month sentence under a §5K1.1/§3553(e) below-minimum plea deal; distribution charge dropped.
- His conviction made him removable and barred him from cancellation of removal, but he was not warned of deportation risk before pleading guilty.
- While removal proceedings were pending, DeBartolo filed a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise about deportation and sought to withdraw his plea; the district court denied relief.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding DeBartolo showed a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial if properly advised, and that declining the plea would not have been irrational under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's failure to advise of deportation risk violated Sixth Amendment under Padilla | DeBartolo: Padilla requires warning; counsel failed to warn; constitutes ineffective assistance | Government: No prejudice because DeBartolo would not have gone to trial; evidence stacked against him | Court: Padilla governs; failure to advise can be ineffective assistance and merits prejudice analysis |
| Whether DeBartolo showed a "reasonable probability" he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial | DeBartolo: He would have rolled the dice to avoid deportation; personal desire to stay with family supports reasonable probability | Government: Strong evidence of guilt and sentencing exposure makes it unlikely he would have pursued trial; district court credited this | Court: DeBartolo’s expressed willingness to risk trial satisfies the "reasonable probability" standard |
| Whether rejecting the plea and going to trial would have been "rational under the circumstances" | DeBartolo: Multiple rational bases (chance of acquittal/lesser conviction, negotiate non-removable plea, prefer long U.S. prison to deportation) | Government: Trial would be irrational given likely conviction and longer mandatory sentence (possibly via §851) | Court: Considering realistic factors (jury nullification, lesser-offense prospects, immigration enforcement uncertainty), rejecting plea was not irrational |
| Whether collateral relief (§2255) to withdraw plea is warranted | DeBartolo: Ineffective assistance entitles him to withdraw plea | Government: Denial proper because no prejudice; district court’s denial should stand | Court: Reversed district court; §2255 relief warranted because prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (failure to advise defendant of deportation risk can be ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for plea-withdrawal claims: reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (defense counsel has duties in the plea-bargain process critical to Sixth Amendment)
- Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44 (Second Circuit application of Padilla/Hill standards)
- Hernandez v. United States, 778 F.3d 1230 (Eleventh Circuit discussion of "rational under the circumstances" test)