United States v. Glenn Wiersma
22-55421
9th Cir.May 30, 2023Background
- In 1995 Glenn Wiersma pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 286).
- More than 25 years later he sought coram nobis relief, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that the conviction made him deportable.
- The district court denied relief; Wiersma appealed. The Ninth Circuit reviews coram nobis denials de novo.
- Wiersma argued (1) Padilla required counsel to advise about deportation, (2) his plea agreement contained a misleading release-condition provision, (3) his lawyer breached California professional duties to advise on immigration, and (4) the court should have held an evidentiary hearing.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: Padilla is not retroactive; Wiersma pointed to no affirmative misadvice; the plea term was unambiguous and not an immigration representation; state-law duties do not create federal Sixth Amendment relief pre-Padilla; no hearing was required because the petition failed as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively to a 1995 conviction | Wiersma: Padilla requires counsel to advise about deportation and supports coram nobis relief | Gov't: Padilla announced a new rule and is not retroactive to convictions final before Padilla | Padilla is not retroactive; cannot ground coram nobis relief for 1995 conviction |
| Whether counsel affirmatively misadvised Wiersma about immigration consequences | Wiersma: Counsel misled him (or failed to disclose) immigration consequences; plea provision implied different post-incarceration release timing | Gov't: No affirmative misrepresentation; petition admits counsel never discussed immigration; plea term was a government promise about release conditions, not immigration | No affirmative misadvice shown; plea language not a misrepresentation about deportation |
| Whether failure to follow California professional standards supports federal ineffective-assistance claim | Wiersma: State law required advising noncitizen clients about immigration; counsel breached that duty | Gov't: Federal Sixth Amendment pre-Padilla treats immigration consequences as collateral, so state-law duties do not create federal relief | State professional obligations do not convert collateral immigration consequences into a federal Sixth Amendment claim pre-Padilla |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing | Wiersma: Additional factual development could show deficient performance | Gov't: Petition fails as a matter of law; documentary record is sufficient | No abuse of discretion; hearing unnecessary because legal failure of the petition was clear |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must inform client whether plea carries risk of deportation)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Padilla announced a new rule and is not retroactive to convictions already final)
- United States v. Kroytor, 977 F.3d 957 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for coram nobis denials)
- United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir.) (pre-Padilla: counsel who affirmatively misleads about immigration consequences can be ineffective)
- United States v. Fry, 322 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing direct vs. collateral consequences for Sixth Amendment analysis)
- Runningeagle v. Ryan, 825 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.) (district court may deny evidentiary hearing when documentary record suffices)