United States v. Guzman-Ferreiras
16-3192-cr
| 2d Cir. | Oct 16, 2017Background
- Defendant Sergio Donato Guzman–Ferreiras pleaded guilty on Nov. 4, 2003 to transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).
- Guzman is no longer in custody and has been ordered removed from the United States.
- In his written plea agreement (signed by him and counsel) and at the plea colloquy, Guzman was told his plea "may result in deportation," and he acknowledged understanding that risk.
- Guzman filed a coram nobis petition on Mar. 10, 2016, arguing trial counsel failed to accurately advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea.
- The district court denied the petition; Guzman appealed. The Second Circuit reviewed denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Guzman (petitioner) | Government (respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s advice about immigration consequences was constitutionally deficient such that coram nobis relief is warranted | Counsel failed to advise accurately about deportation risk, so conviction should be vacated | Counsel and the court warned that plea "may result in deportation," satisfying pre-Padilla obligations | Denied — warnings in plea agreement and colloquy were sufficient under pre-Padilla standards |
| Applicability of Padilla v. Kentucky retroactively | Padilla error should entitle relief | Padilla not retroactive to convictions final before decision; Guzman’s conviction final before Padilla | Padilla not retroactive; pre‑Padilla standards apply |
| Timeliness / laches for coram nobis | Delay explained or excused; relief still warranted | Petition is untimely; Guzman offered no sound reason for 12+ year delay | Denied — petitioner failed to justify long delay; coram nobis may be time‑barred |
| Whether an affirmative misrepresentation occurred (making claim stronger) | Counsel’s advice amounted to misleading reassurance | No affirmative misrepresentation in the record; counsel and court warned of deportation | No affirmative misrepresentation; claim weaker and insufficient for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996) (standard and availability of coram nobis relief)
- Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2014) (coram nobis principles and ineffective‑assistance contexts)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform clients of deportation consequences; scope of Strickland in immigration context)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (Padilla not retroactive to convictions already final)
- United States v. Couto, 311 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2002) (pre‑Padilla: failure to advise about deportation, without more, does not necessarily fall below objective reasonableness)