Criminal Defense of Immigrants

Chapter

§11.1 I. Introduction
§11.2 II. Summary: What Criminal Counsel Need to Know
§11.3 III. Effective Orders Vacating Conviction
§11.4 A. General Rule
§11.5 B. Full Faith and Credit
§11.6 C. Burden of Proof
§11.7 D. Increasing the Chances Immigration Authorities Will Respect the Order
§11.8 E. Jurisdiction to Vacate
§11.9 IV. Effective Orders Modifying Sentence
§11.10 A. Most Recent Sentence Governs
§11.11 B. New Definition of "Conviction"
§11.12 C. Reducing Sentence
§11.13 D. Reduction of Felony to Misdemeanor
§11.14 1. Immigration Consequences
§11.15 2. Procedure
§11.16 E. Reduction of Misdemeanor to Infraction
§11.17 V. Effective Rehabilitative Relief
§11.18 A. General Rule
§11.19 B. Federal First Offender Act Exception
§11.20 C. Ninth Circuit Exception for State and Foreign Rehabilitative Relief Analogous to FFOA
§11.21 D. Judicial Recommendation Against Deportation
§11.22 E. Pardon
§11.23 1. Determination of Whether a Pardon Exists
§11.24 2. Foreign Pardons
§11.25 VI. Procedure to Obtain Post-Conviction Relief
§11.26 A. Finding Post-Conviction Counsel
§11.27 B. Investigating the Case
§11.28 C. Developing a Strategy
§11.29 1. Adverse Consequences of Post-Conviction Relief
§11.30 2. Ex Post Facto Doctrine
§11.31 3. Conduct-Based Immigration Consequences
§11.32 D. Evaluating the Case
§11.33 1. Requirements for Successful Post-Conviction Relief
§11.34 a. Matching the Vehicle to the Immigration Effect
§11.35 b. Matching the Vehicle to the Ground of Legal Invalidity
§11.36 c. Choosing a Vehicle that Works
§11.37 d. Timing of Post-Conviction Relief
§11.38 2. Factors to Consider
§11.39 a. The Current Status of the Client
§11.40 i. The Client is Clean and Sober
§11.41 ii. The Client Has Strong Equities
§11.42 iii. The Client is Out of Custody
§11.43 iv. The Client Has No Outstanding or Potential Arrest Warrants
§11.44 v. The Client Has No Current Aggravated Re-entry Exposure
§11.45 vi. The Client is Lawfully Present
§11.46 b. The Criminal Situation
§11.47 i. A Small Criminal Case Has Large Immigration Effects
§11.48 ii. The Client Has Few Convictions
§11.49 iii. Number and Diversity of Original Charges
§11.50 iv. The Evidence of Guilt is Weak, or the Client Has a Plausible Claim of (at Least Partial) Innocence
§11.51 v. The Client Was Charged Jointly With 1 or More Codefendants
§11.52 vi. A Relatively Minor Change in Conviction or Sentence Will Solve the Immigration Problem
§11.53 vii. There is Small Risk the Client Will Receive Additional Time in Custody
§11.54 (a. Adverse Criminal Consequences
§11.55 (b. Adverse Immigration Consequences
§11.56 viii. The Jurisdiction Where the Conviction Occurred is Relatively Sympathetic
§11.57 ix. Incomplete Initial Defense Investigation
§11.58 x. Technical Problems with Prosecution Case
§11.59 c. Timing of the Case
§11.60 i. Federal Time Limits
§11.61 (a. Motion to Vacate Sentence Under § 2255
§11.62 (b. Coram Nobis Time Limits
§11.63 (c. Attacking State Convictions
§11.64 ii. Time Limits Within Which Actions for State Post-Conviction Relief Must be Filed
§11.65 d. The Client Has 6 Months or More Before Irrevocable Immigration Damage Occurs
§11.66 e. There is Still Time To Reopen the Immigration Case if Criminal Convictions Are Eliminated
§11.67 f. The Records Necessary to Establish Error in the Criminal Case Still Exist
§11.68 VII. Vacating Convictions
§11.69 A. Vehicles
§11.70 B. Grounds
§11.71 VIII. Modifying Sentences
§11.72 A. Vehicles
§11.73 B. Grounds
§11.74 IX. After Obtaining Post-Conviction Relief
§11.75 A. Defending the Criminal Case Again
§11.76 1. Some Safer Alternative Dispositions
§11.77 2. Plea Negotiations
§11.78 B. Documenting the Victory
§11.79 1. Obtaining Certified Copies
§11.80 2. Correcting Criminal History Records
§11.81 C. Reopening Removal Proceedings
§11.82 1. Before Deportation Has Occurred
§11.83 2. After Deportation Has Occurred
§11.84 3. Collateral Attack of Deportation Order Upon Prosecution for Illegal Re-entry
§11.85 X. Other Resources

§ 11.57 ix. Incomplete Initial Defense Investigation

For more text, click "Next Page>"

It may be possible to determine from the client whether the original defense counsel conducted a thorough investigation, talked at length with the defendant to find out precisely what happened, visited the scene, interviewed eyewitnesses, etc.

A failure to do so may be a ground to vacate the plea. If a more thorough investigation would have turned up evidence of innocence or evidence that would likely have resulted in a plea to a lesser offense, imposition of a smaller sentence, or the granting of a motion to suppress or dismiss, the ineffectiveness of counsel may be ruled prejudicial, and the conviction or sentence may be set aside.

As the Supreme Court held in Strickland v. Washington,[314] counsel must, at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling him or her to make informed decisions about how best to represent his or her client.[315]

[314] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 (1984).

[315] See also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1109 (9th Cir. 1992) (vacating conviction); United States v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1989) (reversing conviction for failure to investigate a mental defense); Evans v. Lewis, 855 F.2d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a failure to investigate “cannot be construed as a trial tactic” where counsel did not even bother to view relevant documents that were available).