No. 20-30

Nigel Christopher Paul Martin v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-07-16
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: criminal-procedure immigration immigration-consequences ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel mandatory-deportation padilla-claim padilla-v-kentucky plea-agreement plea-bargaining post-conviction-relief
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Immigration
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is a defendant categorically prohibited from establishing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), where he is advised in the plea agreement and during the plea colloquy that he faces the possibility of mandatory removal and states that he seeks to enter a guilty plea regardless of the immigration consequences?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner, a non-citizen, pled guilty to access device fraud. The plea agreement warned him that he might be subject to removal and other immigration consequences, though it cautioned that “no one, including the defendant’s attorney or the Court, can predict to a certainty the effect of the defendant’s conviction on the defendant’s immigration status.” The district court also informed him that his guilty plea “may” subject him to “deportation, exclusion or voluntary departure.” Mr. Martin affirmed he wished to plead guilty “regardless of any immigration consequences.” The factual proffer filed in connection with the plea agreement asserted that the fraud loss resulting from the overall scheme was in excess of $200,000, which surpassed the threshold loss amount of $10,000 under immigration law for the access device fraud to count as an aggravated felony. Thus, although Mr. Martin was only informed on the record of the possibility of deportation, his conviction triggered mandatory deportation. Mr. Martin brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the district court denied it without conducting an evidentiary hearing, finding that the plea agreement and colloquy precluded a showing of prejudice. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The question presented is: Is a defendant categorically prohibited from establishing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), where he is advised in the plea agreement and during the plea colloquy that he faces the ii possibility of mandatory removal and states that he seeks to enter a guilty plea regardless of the immigration consequences?

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States of Americe to respond filed.
2020-07-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 17, 2020)

Attorneys

Nigel Christopher Paul Martin
Andrew Brooks Greenlee — Petitioner
United States of Americe
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent