74 F. Supp. 3d 484
D.D.C.2014Background
- Newman pled guilty on Oct. 24, 2001 to one count of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
- Newman contends his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform him of immigration consequences of the plea.
- Government argues Padilla is not retroactive and Chaidez holds the rule does not apply to final convictions.
- Prior to the plea, the court warned Newman that deportation could result, but his counsel did not advise him or intervene.
- Post-plea, Newman cooperated with the government; misstatements about INS consequences were made by the government, himself, and the court at sentencing.
- Newman was sentenced in 2002 and deported after release in 2003; Padilla (2010) prompted this coram nobis petition; Chaidez (2013) forecloses retroactive relief for Padilla.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Padilla governs relief | Newman relies on Padilla to show ineffective assistance. | Chaidez bars retroactive application of Padilla. | Padilla not retroactive under Chaidez. |
| Ineffective assistance pre-Padilla | Counsel failed to warn about deportation risk before plea. | Rule not applicable because Padilla was a new rule. | No relief because Padilla not retroactive to his final conviction. |
| Post-plea misrepresentation prejudice | Misrepresentation at sentencing affected outcome. | Prejudice cannot be shown because misrepresentation occurred after plea. | No prejudice; post-plea misrepresentations cannot undermine outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (deportation advice is constitutionally mandatory for ineffective assistance)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla not retroactive to final convictions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (plea stage prejudice standard)
- Doe v. Atty. Gen. of U.S., 659 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2011) (fraud is crime involving moral turpitude; immigration consequences)
- United States v. Faison, 956 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D.D.C. 2013) (coram nobis standards; extraordinary remedy)
- United States v. Hansen, 906 F. Supp. 688 (D.D.C. 1995) (fundamental character of error for coram nobis)