United States v. Ana Urias-Marrufo
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3907
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Urias-Marrufo, a lawful permanent resident since childhood, pled guilty in March 2012 to possession with intent to distribute marijuana; plea accepted by district court in April 2012.
- She obtained new counsel before sentencing and moved to withdraw her guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B), asserting ineffective assistance of prior counsel under Padilla (failure to inform of certain deportation).
- At the plea colloquy Urias acknowledged she understood there "may be" immigration consequences and testified later she had not been told she would certainly be deported and would not have pled guilty if she had known.
- The district court denied the withdrawal motion, finding under the Carr factors that withdrawal was not warranted and concluding Padilla was a collateral §2255-type claim inappropriate for resolution on the Rule 11 motion.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, affirmed most Carr findings but held the district court erred by refusing to address the Padilla claim on the Rule 11 motion and remanded for the district court to consider the Padilla claim on the merits (with discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Urias's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Padilla claim presented in a Rule 11 motion to withdraw a plea can be resolved by the district court (or must be confined to collateral §2255 proceedings) | Padilla claim was timely and factually developed; district court should decide it on the Rule 11 motion | Padilla-type ineffective assistance claims belong in collateral §2255 proceedings; Rule 11 inquiry need only assess whether defendant was warned of possible immigration consequences | District court erred to refuse to address a sufficiently presented Padilla claim on a Rule 11 motion; remanded for district court to decide it |
| Whether counsel’s alleged failure to advise of certain deportation rendered Urias’s plea not knowing and voluntary | Counsel failed to advise that deportation was certain; thus plea unknowingly entered and withdrawal should be allowed | Plea colloquy showed Urias understood there might be immigration consequences; hence plea was knowing and voluntary | Padilla-type factual claim must be considered by district court; if Padilla violation found, withdrawal is warranted. Court remanded for factual resolution |
| Whether Urias lacked close assistance of counsel under the Carr factors | Counsel did not closely assist—failed to advise immigration consequences | At plea hearing Urias acknowledged discussion of immigration consequences; other aspects of counsel’s performance were adequate | Fifth Circuit found district court’s conclusion that close assistance was available was not clearly erroneous and affirmed that Carr factor finding |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claims can be addressed on direct appeal when record is sufficient | Direct review appropriate when claim is presented and record developed | Generally such claims are for collateral review unless the record is sufficient | Court: direct review of ineffective-assistance (Padilla) is permissible when claim is properly presented and the record is sufficiently developed; here remand for district court factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen whether guilty plea carries a risk of deportation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1984) (seven-factor test for withdrawing a guilty plea under Rule 11)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (describing Padilla as imposing duty to inform of risks of deportation)
- United States v. Villegas-Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 224 (5th Cir. 1999) (direct appeal of ineffective-assistance claim permitted when record is sufficiently developed)