United States v. Innocent Batamula
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9186
5th Cir.2015Background
- Batamula, a Tanzanian national, pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1542 for obtaining a U.S. passport by false statements; he was sentenced to time served, supervised release, and a fine.
- He did not appeal but filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion claiming his retained counsel was ineffective under Padilla v. Kentucky for failing to advise that his guilty pleas would cause deportation.
- At the Rule 11 plea colloquy the judge told Batamula the offenses were felonies and that each defendant would "likely be deported" after serving the sentence; the written plea agreement contained no immigration-advice language.
- Batamula submitted affidavits: his own (stating he would have rejected the plea if advised of mandatory deportation), his counsel’s (admitting counsel did not advise that conviction would make him deportable), and an immigration attorney’s (stating the convictions made him presumptively deportable).
- The district court granted the Government’s summary judgment and denied § 2255 relief, reasoning that the judge’s oral admonition that deportation was likely cured any prejudice from counsel’s failure or that Batamula forfeited the claim by pleading after that admonition.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that a judge’s generic plea-colloquy warning that deportation is "likely" does not categorically preclude a Padilla/Strickland prejudice showing and that further factfinding is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judge’s generic admonition at a Rule 11 plea colloquy that deportation is "likely" forecloses a Padilla-based ineffective-assistance claim | Batamula: No; counsel’s failure to advise before plea bargaining may have prejudiced him despite the judge’s late warning | Government/District Ct: Yes; the court’s admonition cured any Padilla/Strickland prejudice or the plea waived the claim | Held: No categorical bar; judicial warning is relevant to prejudice but does not automatically eliminate a Padilla claim; remanded for fact-intensive analysis |
| Whether pleading in compliance with Rule 11 forfeits the right to collaterally attack a plea based on counsel’s deficient advice about immigration consequences | Batamula: A Rule 11-compliant plea does not waive ineffective-assistance claims that attack the voluntariness of the plea itself | Government: The guilty plea and Rule 11 compliance preclude collateral attack | Held: A valid guilty plea does not bar collateral attack based on ineffective assistance that affected the plea’s validity |
| Whether the district court could resolve Batamula’s § 2255 claim on summary judgment without an evidentiary hearing | Batamula: Record raises disputed fact issues (counsel’s advice, whether prejudice occurred) requiring hearing | Government: Facts are conclusively resolved by the plea colloquy and affidavits | Held: Record insufficiently developed; remand for further proceedings (likely evidentiary hearing) |
| Whether a judge’s admonition substitutes for counsel’s constitutional duty to advise on immigration consequences | Batamula: No; counsel’s duty is distinct and occurs during plea bargaining; judge’s late warning cannot substitute | Government: The court’s warning is a sufficient notice that defeats prejudice | Held: Judicial admonition is not a substitute for counsel’s duties; it’s one factor in the totality-of-circumstances prejudice inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (defense counsel must advise noncitizen clients about deportation risks)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (Sixth Amendment effective-assistance duty applies during plea bargaining; prejudice standard for plea-stage errors)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (counsel’s duties in plea bargaining and prejudice inquiry under Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying Strickland to guilty-plea context)
- Kayode v. United States, 777 F.3d 719 (judicial admonitions relevant but not dispositive to Strickland prejudice in Padilla claims)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (Padilla created new constitutional rule requiring counsel to advise on immigration consequences)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (purpose of plea colloquy is limited—to ensure voluntariness of plea)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (role of counsel as advocate is essential and distinct from the judge’s role)