United States v. Robert Skeffery
692 F. App'x 927
9th Cir.2017Background
- Robert Skeffery pleaded guilty to attempted reentry after deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1326) pursuant to a conditional plea that waived most appeals and collateral attacks but preserved the right to bring an ineffective-assistance claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
- Skeffery was sentenced to time served and immediately released, but he later challenged the conviction asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Prior to the plea, counsel had successfully moved to dismiss an earlier indictment based on an immigration judge’s erroneous conclusion that Skeffery was ineligible for relief under former INA § 212(c); this Court reversed that dismissal because Skeffery could not show the equitable grounds for § 212(c) relief given his criminal history.
- Skeffery contends counsel erred by (1) advising him to plead guilty after the appellate reversal and (2) failing to move to reopen his immigration proceedings before the plea.
- The district court denied Skeffery’s motion for reconsideration of its denial of relief under § 2255 or, alternatively, a writ of error coram nobis; Skeffery appealed pro se.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the coram nobis denial de novo and affirmed, concluding Skeffery failed to show a fundamental error or the prejudice required to prevail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising plea after appellate reversal | Counsel misadvised Skeffery to plead despite available § 212(c) relief | Counsel’s advice followed appellate reversal showing Skeffery lacked equities for § 212(c) relief; plea preserved cert. review | Held: No ineffective assistance; Skeffery cannot show deficient performance or prejudice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to reopen immigration proceedings before plea | Counsel should have moved to reopen to seek § 212(c) relief pre-plea | Reopening would not have produced favorable § 212(c) discretionary relief given Skeffery’s record | Held: No prejudice from failure to reopen; Skeffery still could not obtain § 212(c) relief |
| Whether coram nobis relief is available for Skeffery’s claims | Error of fundamental character entitling to coram nobis | No such fundamental error shown; procedural posture and preserved collateral route negate relief | Held: Coram nobis denied — requirements for extraordinary relief unmet |
| Whether plea-waiver bars collateral attack here | Waiver bars attacks generally, but ineffective-assistance exception exists under § 2255 | Waiver does not bar ineffective-assistance collateral attack preserved in plea | Held: Waiver not enforced to bar the preserved ineffective-assistance claim; court nonetheless rejects claim on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards and requirements for coram nobis relief)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims in guilty-plea context)
- United States v. Skeffery, [citation="500 F. App'x 694"] (9th Cir. 2012) (appellate decision denying favorable exercise of discretion for § 212(c) relief)
- Skeffery v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 159 (2013) (Supreme Court denial of certiorari)