Opinion
Case No. 3:98cr60
12-11-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LITO P. SORIO, Defendant.
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DECISION AND ENTRY DETERMINING COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A PETITION TO VACATE SENTENCE (OR UNDERLYING PLEA UPON WHICH THE CONVICTION WAS BASED) OR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS
The Defendant, Lito Sorio, pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in February, 1999, to one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery. He was placed on probation, and neither took a direct appeal nor collaterally attacked the conviction by means of a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His conviction, therefore, was final, for purposes of appeal, almost a decade before the United States Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1076 L.Ed. 2d 284 (2010), holding that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to provide advice about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. In the case of Chaidez v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1103, 1105, 185 L.Ed. 2d 149 (2013), the Supreme Court held that the Padilla ruling did not apply retroactively, in order that a person whose conviction became final before Padilla was decided can benefit from it. Given that the Defendant herein's matter is no longer in the chain of direct appeal, it can no longer be collaterally attacked, either by a motion to vacate under Section 2255 of Title 28 or a Writ of Coram Nobis.
_______
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Counsel of record