From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santos-Sanchez v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 15, 2010
381 F. App'x 419 (5th Cir. 2010)

Summary

holding that Padilla abrogated the appellate court's previous decision and remanding for further evidentiary proceedings

Summary of this case from Elmour v. Government Ofvirgin Islands

Opinion

No. 07-40145.

June 15, 2010.

George W. Aristotelidis, Law Offices of Jorge Aristotelidis, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (06-CV-153).

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.


ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


In Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327, 336 (5th Cir. 2008), vacated by ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2340, 176 L.Ed.2d 559 (2010), we held, inter alia, that the alleged failure of Jesus Natividad Santos-Sanchez's attorney to warn him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel warranting coram nobis relief. In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment mandates that "counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation." ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1486, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). Subsequently, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in Santos-Sanchez and remanded the case to us for further consideration.

We find that Padilla has abrogated our holding in Santos-Sanchez. We therefore vacate the district court's denial of Santos-Sanchez's petition for a writ of coram nobis and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Padilla.

We note that Santos-Sanchez's deportation neither deprives the district court of jurisdiction nor renders his petition moot. See Zalawadia v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding, in the context of a writ of habeas corpus, that a bar on re-admission following removal or deportation is a legally cognizable collateral consequence, and thus deportation did not render the petition moot).

VACATED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Santos-Sanchez v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jun 15, 2010
381 F. App'x 419 (5th Cir. 2010)

holding that Padilla abrogated the appellate court's previous decision and remanding for further evidentiary proceedings

Summary of this case from Elmour v. Government Ofvirgin Islands

vacating denial of coram nobis relief and remanding to trial court for further proceedings consistent with Padilla

Summary of this case from State v. Golding

In Santos-Sanchez, it vacated the district court's denial of the petitioner's claim for a writ of coram nobis and remanded the petition for reconsideration according to Padilla.

Summary of this case from State v. Golding
Case details for

Santos-Sanchez v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:Jesus Natividad SANTOS-SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jun 15, 2010

Citations

381 F. App'x 419 (5th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

State v. Golding

Recent decisions by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals indicate that Padilla applies retroactively. See…

Elmour v. Government Ofvirgin Islands

Morgan, 346 U.S. at 511. Nonetheless, we are of the opinion that Elmour is entitled to an evidentiary hearing…