United States v. Innocent Batamula
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8541
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Batamula, a Tanzanian national who overstayed an F-1 student visa, pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to two federal counts involving false statements and a passport fraud-related offense; the district court warned him during the plea colloquy that he would "likely be deported."
- He later moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming ineffective assistance under Padilla: his trial counsel failed to advise that pleading to both counts would make him presumptively/mandatorily deportable, and he stated he would have proceeded to trial or sought to eliminate a count if so advised.
- The district court granted the Government summary judgment, denying an evidentiary hearing, reasoning Batamula could not show prejudice because the court’s admonition of likely deportation foreclosed prejudice.
- A panel initially reversed on the narrow question whether a judicial warning alone forecloses prejudice; the en banc court reviewed whether Batamula alleged a non-frivolous prejudice claim and whether summary dismissal was proper.
- The en banc majority affirmed dismissal: it held Batamula failed to show prejudice because undisputed record evidence established he was deportable before the plea under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C) for overstaying his visa, so pleading to the two counts did not materially worsen his deportability.
- A dissent argued the majority (1) failed to correct the district court’s legal error treating a judicial admonition as dispositive, (2) improperly denied an evidentiary hearing, and (3) made appellate-level factual findings about deportability that were not conclusively established in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Batamula's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Batamula alleged non-frivolous prejudice from counsel’s failure to advise about deportation consequences (Strickland prejudice prong) | Counsel failed to advise that pleading to two counts would make deportation mandatory; had he known, he would have refused plea, gone to trial or eliminated a count | Even if counsel erred, Batamula cannot show prejudice because he was already deportable for overstaying his visa, so plea did not change deportability | Held: No non-frivolous prejudice alleged; summary dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a judge’s admonition at plea colloquy that deportation is "likely" alone forecloses prejudice | Padilla requires counsel to advise; a later judicial warning cannot automatically erase prejudice from deficient counsel | District court argued its admonition meant Batamula knew of deportation risk and so suffered no prejudice | Held: Court did not rest decision solely on admonition; it relied on record showing pre-existing deportability to reject prejudice claim |
| Whether district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on § 2255 motion | Batamula: factual allegations and affidavits required a hearing because the record does not conclusively refute his claims | Government: evidence in the record (visa overstay) conclusively shows no prejudice, so no hearing required | Held: No hearing required; summary judgment appropriate because record showed Batamula was deportable pre-plea |
| Whether appellate court may affirm on alternative ground (pre-existing deportability) without remand | Batamula: court should remand for findings, since district court based denial on admonition and did not make findings on deportability | Government: appellate affirmation on any record-supported ground is appropriate | Held: Affirmed on alternative ground — undisputed record evidence established deportability prior to plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen of clear deportation consequences of plea)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (to show prejudice in guilty-plea context, defendant must show reasonable probability he would have gone to trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- United States v. Kayode, 777 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2014) (prejudice analysis is fact-specific; list of relevant factors for plea-prejudice inquiry)
- United States v. Guerra, 588 F.2d 519 (5th Cir. 1979) (§ 2255 petitions may be dismissed without a hearing when claims are patently frivolous)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (Rule 11 colloquy rigor reduces frivolous post-conviction attacks)