Flavio Tamez v. United States

The courts of appeals are divided over whether a criminal defendant’s generic waiver of his right to appeal or bring a collateral attack can knowingly waive the defendant’s specific right to bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Where, as here, a criminal defendant’s waiver of his right to bring a collateral attack does not mention a claim of ineffective counsel, can that waiver ever be construed as a knowing waiver of the right to challenge his counsel’s constitutional effectiveness?

In Jae Lee v. United States, this Court held that counsel’s erroneous advice regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea could render the defendant’s waiver of his right to trial not knowing. Does the rationale of Lee apply here, where Petitioner alleged the counsel’s erroneous advice regarding his possible sentence rendered Petitioner’s decision to waive his right to appeal the sentence not knowing?

In support of his request for certificate of appealability, Petitioner presented the court of appeals with lengthy cogent arguments supported by ample citations to precedent and record showing that the district court had committed legal error. The Fifth Circuit denied the COA in a brief order that neither acknowledged Petitioner’s arguments nor explained the court’s decision. Was this unexplained decision so arbitrary that it deprived the Petitioner of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment?