Sentencing — prior state-court conviction – ineffective assistance

Listen to this article

The district court did not err by applying a statutory enhancement to defendant’s sentence due to a prior state conviction, even though defendant was not advised that his guilty plea to the state court case could be used against him later to trigger a statutory sentencing enhancement in federal court.

Defendant’s reliance on Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), is misplaced. In Padilla, an immigrant pleaded guilty in state court to drug-related offenses, and his attorney failed to advise him that as a result of that guilty plea, he would likely be deported. The Supreme Court held that his attorney’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.

“Padilla is rife with indications that the Supreme Court meant to limit its scope to the context of deportation only. … In this case, we deal not with deportation, but with the possibility of an enhanced sentence for future criminal conduct. This court already ruled on this exact issue in Lewis v. United States, although in Lewis, we relied partially on a prior case involving deportation that is now overruled by Padilla. [Citations.] Nevertheless, because of the limited scope of Padilla (discussed above), our conclusion about future punishment in Lewis remains sound. As we noted, ‘deportation is a consequence of this [the instant] conviction; enhancement depends on the defendant’s deciding to commit future crimes.’ 902 F.2d at 577 (emphasis in original). Put simply, there is no automatic consequence to the guilty plea in this case. Any risk present at the time Reeves pleaded guilty in state court in 2004 was entirely contingent on his deciding to commit more crime in the future.”

Affirmed.

11-2328 U.S. v. Reeves

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Gottschall, J., Bauer, J.

Full Text