United States v. Delgado-Ramos
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7060
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Delgado-Ramos was convicted of attempted entry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)-(b).
- He pleaded without a plea agreement and the district court did not inform him of immigration consequences during the plea colloquy.
- Padilla v. Kentucky was decided after Delgado-Ramos was sentenced, and he did not raise a Padilla claim below.
- The appeal proceeds under the plain-error standard (Vonn; Recio) to assess whether the district court erred, the error was plain, affected substantial rights, and seriously affected fairness.
- Historically, this circuit differentiates due process voluntariness (direct consequences) from ineffective assistance (Strickland) concerning immigration matters.
- We upheld Amador-Leal’s rule that Rule 11 and due process do not require informing of immigration consequences, and held Padilla did not overrule that precedent sufficiently to warrant reversal here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Padilla overrule Amador-Leal? | Delgado-Ramos argues Padilla undermines Amador-Leal. | Delgado-Ramos contends Padilla should require informing of immigration consequences. | No; Padilla does not overrule Amador-Leal. |
| Was there plain error in failing to inform of immigration consequences? | Delgado-Ramos relies on Padilla to show error. | Amador-Leal remains controlling; no obligation to inform under Rule 11/due process. | Not shown; no plain error affecting substantial rights. |
| Did Padilla create a Sixth Amendment remedy that overrides the Rule 11/due process framework here? | Padilla could render failure to inform a Sixth Amendment violation. | Padilla applies to Sixth Amendment claims, not Rule 11/due process where Amador-Leal governs. | Padilla does not alter the Rule 11/due process analysis here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (deportation risk may affect counsel’s performance under Strickland)
- Amador-Leal, 276 F.3d 511 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 11/due process do not require informing immigration consequences)
- Fruchtman v. Kenton, 531 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1976) (collateral consequence of deportation not direct consequence for voluntariness)
- Torrey v. Estelle, 842 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1988) (voluntariness requires awareness of direct consequences)
- Recio, 371 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2004) (plain-error framework for reviewing plea proceedings)
- Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (non-structural error requiring showing of prejudice)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc standard for overruling controlling circuit precedent)