United States v. Castro-Taveras
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19561
1st Cir.2016Background
- Castro, a lawful permanent resident since 1995, pleaded guilty in 2002 to mail and insurance fraud pursuant to a written plea agreement; the agreement did not mention immigration consequences.
- Probation office later noted Castro would face deportation because the plea treated his offense as an aggravated felony (loss > $10,000); Castro received probation and later sought naturalization in 2011.
- An immigration attorney advised Castro the 2002 plea barred naturalization and subjected him to mandatory removal; Castro then filed a coram nobis petition claiming constitutional error.
- Castro alleged (a) his trial counsel affirmatively misadvised him that probation would avoid deportation (ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment), and (b) the AUSA made a similar assurance (invoking Fifth Amendment involuntariness/due process).
- The district court denied relief, ruling Castro’s Sixth Amendment claim was barred by Teague retroactivity of Padilla (per Chaidez) and rejecting the prosecutor-based involuntary-plea argument.
- The First Circuit reviewed de novo, declined to consider newly submitted transcript evidence on appeal, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Castro’s ineffective-assistance claim, holding the Sixth Amendment claim is not Teague-barred as to affirmative misadvice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Castro's Sixth Amendment claim (counsel affirmatively misadvised re: deportation) is barred retroactively by Teague/Padilla | Castro: Padilla's rule covers affirmative misadvice; First Circuit precedent and other courts would have applied Strickland pre-2003 so claim is not barred | Gov: Padilla announced a new rule (per Chaidez) and does not apply retroactively to convictions final in 2003 | Held: Not barred — court finds misadvice principle was embedded in pre-2003 lower-court law; vacates and remands for an evidentiary hearing on Strickland merits |
| Whether Padilla's new-rule scope includes affirmative misrepresentation claims | Castro: Padilla and Chaidez should be read to allow misadvice claims to proceed | Gov: Padilla announced a new rule that should not be applied retroactively per Chaidez | Held: Padilla indisputably created a new rule for failure-to-advise; as to misadvice, the court finds pre-2003 consensus made Strickland-applicability to misadvice not a new rule |
| Whether the prosecutor’s alleged assurance renders the plea involuntary under the Fifth Amendment | Castro: AUSA’s statements independently induced an involuntary plea and warrant vacatur | Gov: AUSA is not defense counsel; Castro never argued an independent Fifth Amendment claim below and evidence does not support inducement | Held: Rejected — district court did not err treating Castro’s argument as Sixth Amendment-based and Castro’s Fifth Amendment/involuntariness claim as presented fails |
| Whether the district court could deny an evidentiary hearing on coram nobis | Castro: Hearing required to resolve factual dispute about what counsel/AUSA said and Castro’s knowledge | Gov: District court could deny as futile; introduced transcript on appeal to show Castro knew consequences | Held: Remanded — appellate court declines to consider new transcript and instructs the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (attorney’s advice regarding deportation consequences may be governed by Sixth Amendment / Strickland)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (Padilla announced a new rule for retroactivity purposes as to failure-to-advise claims)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules in collateral proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 202 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2000) (pre-Padilla First Circuit authority treating deportation consequences as collateral for some purposes)