927 F.3d 808
4th Cir.2019Background
- Murillo, a lawful permanent resident who immigrated from Mexico at age 7, was indicted for cocaine conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute; he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to avoid a five-year mandatory minimum.
- Murillo retained attorney Katherine Martell, who marketed immigration knowledge; plea negotiations removed several immigration-waiver clauses at defense request, but the final plea form contained a boilerplate warning that pleading guilty "may" have immigration consequences and that Murillo "wants to plead guilty regardless" of such consequences.
- Martell repeatedly told Murillo and his family that deportation was only a possibility and that Murillo could fight removal in immigration court; the court likewise told Murillo he "may be deported."
- After learning while incarcerated that he would be deported as an "aggravated felon," Murillo filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for incorrect immigration advice (Padilla-type claim).
- The district court denied relief, finding Murillo could not show prejudice because his plea stated he wanted to plead guilty regardless of immigration consequences; this Court reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murillo) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't / District Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murillo suffered Strickland prejudice from counsel's incorrect immigration advice during plea bargaining | Martell told him deportation was only a possibility and he could fight removal; had he known pleading meant mandatory deportation he would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial | Murillo expressly agreed in the plea agreement and plea colloquy that he "wants to plead guilty regardless" of immigration consequences, so he cannot show a reasonable probability he would have refused the plea | Reversed: plea boilerplate and equivocal colloquy statements are not dispositive; considering context and contemporaneous evidence, Murillo showed a reasonable probability he would have declined the plea if correctly informed |
| Weight of plea-agreement language and plea colloquy in § 2255 Padilla claims | Murillo: boilerplate language must be read in context of counsel's affirmative misadvice and defense efforts to preserve immigration rights | Gov't: sworn plea statements and signed agreement are conclusive and preclude post-hoc assertions | Court: Sworn statements and plea language matter but must be weighed against context; boilerplate is not dispositive when counsel gave affirmative, incorrect assurances |
| Whether a general court warning that a defendant "may be deported" cures counsel's affirmative misadvice | Murillo: the court's equivocal warning did not correct counsel's categorical misadvice that deportation was unlikely due to long residency | Gov't: the court informed Murillo of possible deportation; combined with plea form, this should cure any counsel error | Court: general/equivocal warnings are insufficient to cure affirmative misadvice; the record shows counsel repeatedly downplayed deportation risk |
| Need for evidentiary hearing and adjudication of counsel performance | Murillo: district court should evaluate counsel performance (deficiency) on remand and may need a hearing | Gov't: district court properly dismissed without a hearing because plea statements were binding | Court: district court erred by not analyzing performance; remand for consideration of deficiency (and further proceedings) is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen criminal clients about deportation risk of plea)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (courts should look to contemporaneous evidence, not solely post-hoc assertions, when evaluating plea decisions)
- United States v. Swaby, 855 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2017) (Padilla prejudice can be shown where deportation is defendant's overriding concern; rejected per se rules)
- United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2005) (statements under oath in plea colloquy are presumptively true; postconviction contradictions are generally barred)
- United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2012) (a district court's general warning that a defendant "may be deported" may be insufficient to cure counsel's affirmative misadvice)
- Dat v. United States, 920 F.3d 1192 (8th Cir. 2019) (plea colloquy and written warnings do not automatically preclude Padilla claims when counsel's misadvice was specific)