ILNews

7th Circuit: Ineffective assistance claim can’t challenge deportation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legal permanent resident who argued pro se that ineffective assistance of legal counsel led to his deportation after he pleaded guilty to cocaine distribution failed to persuade the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate his claim that was dismissed by a federal court.

Julio Cesar Chavarria argued in Julio Cesar Chavarria v. United States of America, 11-3549, that his criminal trial counsel told him not to worry about deportation when he pleaded guilty and told him authorities weren’t interested in deporting him.

Chavarria initially argued that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) could be applied retroactively, but the Supreme Court of the United States foreclosed such a possibility in affirming the 7th Circuit’s holding in Chaidez v. United States, 655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011)

Chavarria then appealed on the argument that affirmative misadvice allows an alternative constitutional claim under pre-Padilla law. Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen of the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in Hammond dismissed Chavarria’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claim and the 7th Circuit affirmed.

“The district court correctly concluded that it was bound by Chaidez and that Padilla had no retroactive effect on Chavarria’s case," Circuit Judge James Cudahy wrote for the panel. "(T)he distinction between affirmative misadvice and failure to advise does not somehow evade the non-retroactivity of Padilla.”




 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT