United States v. Rasheed Kayode
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24338
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Kayode, a naturalized U.S. citizen since 2006, was convicted on multiple fraud-related counts after a 2008 indictment.
- He pled guilty to mail fraud (Count 1), aggravated identity theft (Count 43), and unlawful procurement of naturalization (Count 44) under a plea agreement; other charges were dismissed.
- The plea agreement acknowledged he lied about his moral character, rendering him ineligible for citizenship.
- At rearraignment, the district court warned of possible loss of citizenship and deportation; Kayode answered that he understood the consequences.
- Kayode later moved to withdraw his plea (April 2009); he received a total sentence of 234 months after amendments.
- He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to warn about deportation; the district court granted summary judgment on the appeal-waiver issue and denied relief; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the § 2255 denial on appeal, addressing Padilla-based prejudice analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to warn about deportation was deficient under Padilla | Kayode alleges deficient performance. | Kayode’s counsel failed to provide constitutionally adequate deportation guidance. | Yes, deficiency shown under Padilla |
| Whether Kayode suffered prejudice under Strickland Hill standard | But-for-counsel's-error, Kayode would have gone to trial. | Overwhelming evidence and other factors negate reasonable probability of a different outcome. | No, no reasonable probability of a different outcome established |
| Role of judicial admonishments in the prejudice analysis | Monetary or generic admonishments could not cure deficient representation. | Admonishments weigh against prejudice facts. | Admonishments weighed against prejudice in the majority view |
| Whether the district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the Padilla claim | Record shows contested facts; hearing required to develop record. | Record conclusively shows no relief; no hearing required. | No evidentiary hearing required (affirmed district court) |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (defendant must be advised of deportation consequences; prejudice required under Strickland)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice prong requires a reasonable probability of trial waiver by defendant)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice when denial of earlier plea offer; need to show likelihood of better outcome)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice where counsel’s deficient advice leads to trial and worse outcome)
- United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2014) (Padilla claim can be viable based on record and need for record development)
- Gonzalez v. United States, 722 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2013) (relevance of defendant’s attempt to withdraw plea in prejudice analysis)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2013) (Padilla does not apply retroactively on collateral review)