In 2013, Jose Manuel Mendoza, a citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty to falsely claiming United States citizenship and making false statements in a passport application. He was sentenced to 31 days of imprisonment. In 2024, Mendoza filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his convictions. He argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that his guilty plea would result in a lifetime bar to immigration to the United States. The district court denied the petition, and Mendoza appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of the writ of error coram nobis de novo, noting that this is an extraordinary remedy available only when an error of the most fundamental character is shown. To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this context, a defendant must demonstrate both deficient performance and prejudice. The court applied the standard from Strickland v. Washington and Lee v. United States, which requires showing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Specifically, when the claim involves a failure to advise on immigration consequences, the defendant must provide evidence contemporaneous to the guilty plea showing how important those consequences were to them at the time. The court assumed, without deciding, that Mendoza's counsel's performance was deficient. However, Mendoza failed to provide any evidence that, absent his attorney's incompetence, he would have rationally rejected the plea bargain and proceeded to trial. Because he did not demonstrate that he would have opted for trial, he could not establish the necessary prejudice.
The decision leaves Mendoza's convictions intact and affirms the district court's denial of his petition. It reinforces the strict evidentiary burden for defendants seeking coram nobis relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration consequences. Future petitioners must provide contemporaneous evidence of their priorities at the time of the plea to prove they would have rationally rejected a plea bargain to go to trial.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download