Sarria v. United States
866 F. Supp. 2d 1369
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- Sarria fled Cuba in 1982 and was indicted in 1986 for cocaine offenses; pled guilty to conspiracy in 1986 and was sentenced to five years, later reduced to 30 months due to cooperation.
- Petitioner filed a 2011 motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. §2255 or coram Nobis/Audita QuaeIa; alleged his plea counsel failed to advise him of immigration consequences.
- Judge Bandstra ruled §2255 not applicable because Sarria was no longer in custody; found no prejudice for coram nobis regardless of Padilla retroactivity.
- This Court adopted Bandstra’s Report and Recommendation in 2011 and denied reconsideration; Petitioner sought retroactive application of Padilla per United States v. Orocio.
- Petitioner argues Padilla should apply retroactively to his case under Teague; the Court analyzed whether Padilla is an old or new rule and whether exceptions to nonretroactivity apply, concluding Padilla is a new rule and not retroactive.
- If Padilla applied, Petitioner still must show prejudice under Strickland; he offered only an affidavit claiming he would have gone to trial, which the Court found insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Padilla retroactivity under Teague | Sarria relies on Orocio to show retroactivity. | Padilla is a new rule; not retroactive under Teague. | Padilla is a new rule; not retroactive. |
| Retroactivity and Strickland prejudice | If Padilla retroactive, Strickland prejudice shown by likelihood of different outcome. | Even if retroactive, no prejudice shown. | No prejudice established; no relief. |
| Teague exceptions applicability | Padilla should fit Teague exceptions due to old-rule characterization. | Padilla does not fit the narrow Teague exceptions. | Padilla does not retroactively apply under Teague. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (Padilla retroactivity on collateral review under Teague split)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must advise deportation risks of guilty plea)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (retroactivity limited to narrow exceptions)
- Chaidez v. United States, 655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (Padilla is a new rule, not retroactive)
- United States v. Chang Hong, 671 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2011) (Padilla not retroactive; Teague analysis applied)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1989) (custody-related habeas standard for timing of review)