Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneypleafelonyappellantguilty plea
defendantattorneypleafelonyappellantguilty plea

Related Cases

Wagner v. Chertoff
View Case »
Texas and Abbott; U.S. v.
View Case »
Domond v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Jaquez v. Sessions
View Case »
Valansi v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Akinsade

Facts

Appellant, a lawful permanent resident, was charged with embezzlement by a bank employee after he cashed checks for several acquaintances, who were not listed as payees on the checks, and deposited a portion of the proceeds from those checks into his own account. His attorney told him that he could only be deported if he had two felony convictions. That advice was contrary to the law at that time. Relying on his attorney's advice, appellant pled guilty. During the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy, the district court stated that appellant 'could be deported.' Almost nine years later, immigration authorities charged him with removability based on his embezzlement conviction.

Appellant, a lawful permanent resident, was charged with embezzlement by a bank employee after he cashed checks for several acquaintances, who were not listed as payees on the checks, and deposited a portion of the proceeds from those checks into his own account. His attorney told him that he could only be deported if he had two felony convictions. That advice was contrary to the law at that time. Relying on his attorney's advice, appellant pled guilty. During the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy, the district court stated that appellant 'could be deported.' Almost nine years later, immigration authorities charged him with removability based on his embezzlement conviction.

Issue

Whether the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel when he pled guilty to embezzlement, given the misadvice regarding the immigration consequences of his plea.

Whether the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel when he pled guilty to embezzlement, given the misadvice regarding the immigration consequences of his plea.

Rule

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

Analysis

The court found that counsel's affirmative misrepresentations regarding the deportability of the crime constituted deficient performance. The district court's admonishment during the plea colloquy was deemed insufficient to correct this misadvice. The court concluded that the appellant had demonstrated prejudice under the second prong of Strickland, as he would not have pled guilty had he been properly informed of the immigration consequences.

The court found that counsel's affirmative misrepresentations regarding the deportability of the crime constituted deficient performance. The district court's admonishment during the plea colloquy was deemed insufficient to correct this misadvice. The court concluded that the appellant had demonstrated prejudice under the second prong of Strickland, as he would not have pled guilty had he been properly informed of the immigration consequences.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition for writ of error coram nobis and vacated the appellant's conviction.

The court granted the petition for writ of error coram nobis and vacated the appellant's conviction.

Who won?

Appellant prevailed in the case because the court found that he was prejudiced by his counsel's misadvice regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.

Appellant prevailed in the case because the court found that he was prejudiced by his counsel's misadvice regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.

You must be