789 F.Supp.3d 1088
D.N.M.2025Background
- In 1987, Jesus Manuel Salgueido was charged and convicted of possession of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 844, receiving a one-year sentence after pleading guilty.
- Salgueido was unlawfully present in the United States at the time of conviction and sentencing.
- In June 2025, Salgueido filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, seeking to vacate his conviction and withdraw his plea, citing ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to advise him of immigration consequences.
- The government's primary opposition was that Salgueido is not entitled to relief because Padilla v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively, and Salgueido's conviction predated Padilla by decades.
- The court reviewed whether Salgueido met the high bar for coram nobis relief, including diligence, inadequacy of other remedies, and existence of a fundamental legal or factual error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance due to lack of immigration advice | Salgueido claims his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences, violating Sixth Amendment rights under Padilla | The government argues Padilla does not apply retroactively and Salgueido did not act diligently | Denied; Padilla is not retroactive, no remedy available |
| Factual innocence requirement for coram nobis | Salgueido argues actual innocence is not required | Government asserts actual innocence is necessary for relief | Denied; court finds innocence must be asserted and was not |
| Diligence in seeking relief | Salgueido asserts he was vigilant | Government says Salgueido delayed unreasonably, filing decades after conviction | Denied; court finds lack of diligence |
| Fundamental legal or factual error | Salgueido claims the lack of immigration advice is fundamental error | Government contends neither factual nor legal error exists post-Chaidez | Denied; court finds no fundamental error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (clarifies the scope and purpose of the writ of error coram nobis)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (holds that Padilla does not apply retroactively to cases already final)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (requires counsel to advise about deportation risks of guilty plea; addressed retroactivity and scope)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (establishes the procedural use of coram nobis for post-conviction relief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (tests for ineffective assistance of counsel)