United States v. Bonilla
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4760
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bonilla pled guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm and felon in possession of a firearm; he had been a lawful permanent resident for 30+ years with a wife and two US-citizen children.
- After pleading, Bonilla learned (for the first time) that deportation would likely follow from the plea; prior inquiries about immigration consequences had not been answered.
- His wife had asked his attorney about immigration consequences; the attorney failed to provide information prior to the plea hearing.
- Bonilla moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing, asserting the plea was not knowing or voluntary due to lack of immigration-consequences advice.
- The district court denied the motion, relying on Ninth Circuit law at the time that deportation was a collateral consequence and that Bonilla knew of the possibility of deportation; Bonilla then was sentenced to 24 months concurrent on both counts.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion by not liberally applying the fair and just reason standard after Padilla v. Kentucky.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying pre-sentence withdrawal for lack of proper immigration-advice | Bonilla argues inadequate advisory counsel could plausibly motivate trial refusal | Government contends no fair and just reason because Bonilla knew of deportation possibility | Yes, abuse of discretion under fair and just standard |
| Whether Padilla requires counsel to advise about immigration consequences before plea, making omission a fair and just reason | Padilla obligates counsel to provide correct deportation information when the consequence is clear | Government defends limited scope or retroactivity concerns | Yes, inadequate advice can justify withdrawal |
| Whether Mayweather controls the outcome or Bonilla’s facts are sufficiently different to warrant a different result | Bonilla’s silence about immigration risks before plea differentiates from Mayweather | Mayweather controls where defendant knew potential grounds pre-plea | Bonilla distinguishable; Mayweather not controlling here |
| Whether the court should apply Padilla retroactively to Bonilla’s case | Not directly addressed as dispositive; focus remains on whether the failure to advise was a fair and just reason |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (deportation advice is within counsel’s Sixth Amendment duties when deportation is a clear consequence)
- United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2008) (‘fair and just’ standard generous; pre-sentence withdrawal allowed for ineffective assistance or erroneous advice)
- United States v. Garcia, 401 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2005) (pre-plea advice could plausibly motivate withdrawal; fair and just reason standard)
- United States v. Mayweather, 623 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2010) (distinguishable; pre-plea knowledge does not automatically negate fair and just reason to withdraw if facts differ)
- United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2005) (liberal application of fair and just reason for pre-sentence withdrawal)
- United States v. Amador-Leal, 276 F.3d 511 (9th Cir. 2002) (collateral consequence doctrine and counsel duties discussed)