Nigel Christopher Paul Martin v. United States

Petitioner, a non-citizen, pled guilty to access device fraud. The plea agreement warned him that he might be subject to removal and other immigration consequences, though it cautioned that “no one, including the defendant’s attorney or the Court, can predict to a certainty the effect of the defendant’s conviction on the defendant’s immigration status.” The district court also informed him that his guilty plea “may” subject him to “deportation, exclusion or voluntary departure.” Mr. Martin affirmed he wished to plead guilty “regardless of any immigration consequences.” The factual proffer filed in connection with the plea agreement asserted that the fraud loss resulting from the overall scheme was in excess of $200,000, which surpassed the threshold loss amount of $10,000 under immigration law for the access device fraud to count as an aggravated felony. Thus, although Mr. Martin was only informed on the record of the possibility of deportation, his conviction triggered mandatory deportation. Mr. Martin brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the district court denied it without conducting an evidentiary hearing, finding that the plea agreement and colloquy precluded a showing of prejudice. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The question presented is: Is a defendant categorically prohibited from establishing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), where he is advised in the plea agreement and during the plea colloquy that he faces the