Sonia Antionette Dodd v. United States, 709 F. App'x 593

Sonia Dodd and her children were indicted for conspiracy to possess 1000+ kg of marijuana; Alex and Frederick were also charged with possession with intent to distribute. Alex and Frederick were convicted by jury; Dodd and daughter Branddie pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count.
Dodd, a lawful permanent resident, later filed a § 2255 motion claiming her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform her that her conviction could lead to deportation.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing, found the attorney (Wade Rolle) had at least informed Dodd of possible deportation, and credited Rolle’s testimony that Dodd pled guilty to avoid facing her daughter at trial and because of evidence from her sons’ trial.
The district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability on whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective regarding immigration advice and whether Dodd showed prejudice.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed mixed questions of law and fact de novo, gave deference to credibility findings, and applied the Strickland/Lee prejudice framework for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s immigration advice was constitutionally ineffective and caused Dodd to plead guilty	Dodd: counsel failed to inform her that a § 846 conviction would result in deportation, and she would have gone to trial if properly advised	Government/counsel: Rolle at least warned Dodd of possible deportation; Dodd pled guilty for other reasons (fear of daughter testifying; trial evidence)	Court: No ineffective assistance; Dodd failed to show prejudice — no reasonable probability she would have refused the plea and insisted on trial
Whether contemporaneous evidence supports Dodd’s claim that deportation risk controlled her plea decision	Dodd: her post-hoc assertions that she would have risked trial to avoid deportation	Rolle/Government: contemporaneous record (plea colloquy, counsel’s testimony, Dodd’s transfer inquiry) shows other motives and lack of deportation concern	Court: Contemporaneous evidence does not support Dodd; courts should rely on contemporaneous indicators rather than post hoc assertions

Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (explains prejudice standard when counsel gives incorrect immigration advice and defendant alleges she would have declined plea)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise about clear deportation consequences of a plea)
Osley v. United States, 751 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for § 2255 legal and factual findings)
Devine v. United States, 520 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2008) (deference to factfinder on witness credibility)