United States v. Deft. 1
74 F. Supp. 3d 484
D.D.C.2014Background
- In 2001 Kerry Newman, a Jamaican lawful permanent resident, pled guilty to one count of wire fraud for a home "flipping" scheme and agreed to cooperate.
- Newman’s defense counsel did not advise him of immigration consequences before the plea; the court gave a generic warning that a felony "could have the consequence of deportation," but counsel remained silent.
- At sentencing, prosecutor and defense counsel misstated that only sentences over a year and a day would likely trigger INS interest; the court accepted a sentence thought to be "beneficial" with respect to immigration.
- Wire fraud is a crime involving moral turpitude, making Newman essentially inadmissible; in 2007 he was charged as inadmissible and voluntarily deported after counsel told him he had no defense.
- After Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) — which held counsel must advise about deportation risks — Newman filed a coram nobis petition to vacate his 2001 plea; the government argued Padilla is not retroactive per Chaidez.
- The district court concluded Padilla announced a new rule and is not retroactive, and also found post-plea misstatements could not have altered his decision to plead; it denied coram nobis relief.
Issues
| Issue | Newman’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla’s rule applies retroactively to convictions final before Padilla | Padilla error (failure to advise about deportation) entitles him to relief via coram nobis | Padilla established a new rule and is nonretroactive (Chaidez); conviction final in 2001 so Padilla doesn’t apply | Court: Padilla is nonretroactive; Newman cannot rely on it to attack his 2001 plea |
| Whether counsel’s post-plea/sentencing misadvice about INS risk satisfies Strickland prejudice (would have changed plea) | Counsel’s affirmative misstatements at/after sentencing were ineffective and prejudicial | Misstatements occurred after the plea; Newman cannot show they would have altered his decision to plead | Court: Post-plea misadvice cannot satisfy Strickland prejudice for plea; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (advice about deportation risk is constitutionally required)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule and is not retroactive)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty-plea challenges)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (prejudice in plea context requires showing defendant would have insisted on trial)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (coram nobis as extraordinary post-conviction relief)