Summary
In this published Fifth Circuit decision, the court held that a defense lawyer’s warning that deportation was “very likely” satisfied the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel under *Padilla v. Kentucky*, even though the defendant’s offense made her automatically deportable. The court reasoned that the advice put the defendant on sufficient notice of serious immigration consequences, and that warning of “very likely” deportation may be more accurate than stating deportation is certain given executive discretion and available relief. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea, as she received effective assistance and her plea was knowing and voluntary under the Rule 11 factors.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defense counsel's warning of 'very likely' deportation satisfies the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when the offense makes the defendant presumptively deportable.
Holdings
- Yes. When defense counsel tells an alien client that a conviction will have serious immigration consequences, including 'very likely' deportation, that defendant has received sufficient advice to make an informed plea decision, as required by the Sixth Amendment.
- No, the district court did not abuse its discretion; the court properly evaluated the Carr factors, including that Armendariz received close assistance of counsel and the plea was knowing and voluntary.
Key quotations
“We hold that it does. When defense counsel tells an alien client that a conviction will have serious immigration consequences, including 'very likely' deportation, that defendant has received sufficient advice to make an informed plea decision, as required by the Sixth Amendment. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Armendariz's motion to withdraw her plea, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.” (2)
“Armendariz's lawyer provided objectively reasonable representation. Even assuming arguendo that a warning of serious immigration consequences and 'very likely' deportation was not perfectly accurate advice, it still performed the advocacy function that Padilla demands: putting noncitizen clients on notice that their conviction could have an important impact on their immigration status.” (12)
“Padilla holds that prong one is satisfied if, during plea negotiations, the defense lawyer does not inform the defendant 'whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.' Padilla, 559 U.S. at 374. Specifically, the Court stated that 'when the deportation consequence is truly clear, . . . the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.' Id. at 369.” (6)
Factual background
Armendariz, a lawful permanent resident, responded to a Facebook advertisement offering $100 to drive clothes, shoes, and cash from a store in El Paso to a store in Juarez, Mexico. She was suspicious it was a drug transport but needed money. She met the advertisers, who outfitted her truck with a GPS tracker. When she attempted to reenter Texas, a narcotics-detecting dog alerted to the presence of drugs, and officers found bundles of marijuana hidden in the truck. Armendariz was charged with knowingly and intentionally conspiring to import 43.9 kilograms of marijuana. She initially pleaded not guilty, but later decided to plead guilty to importation of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). Before pleading, she was warned by the magistrate judge and her counsel about immigration consequences, including that deportation was 'very likely.' She later learned that the offense made her automatically deportable as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i).
Procedural history
Armendariz was charged with importation of a controlled substance, pleaded guilty, later moved to withdraw plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel for not fully informing her of immigration consequences. The district court denied the motion and sentenced her to probation. She appealed.