Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01313/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

90m5411/06cv1313

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ-ZARCO,

Defendant-Petitioner. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06-CV-1313-L (LSP)

Criminal No. 90-M-5411

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OR ERROR CORAM NOBIS;

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

AND SENTENCING

Petitioner Jose Luis Hernandez-Zarco filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis

(“Petition”) seeking to vacate his December 7, 1990 conviction and sentence for misdemeanor

possession of 24.30 kilograms of marijuana. He seeks this relief because the conviction subjects

him to voluntary departure from the United States and precludes him from becoming a resident

alien. The Petition has been fully briefed by both parties. For the reasons which follow, the

Petition is DENIED.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a Mexican national who entered the United States illegally in September

1985, and subsequently resided in the United States as an undocumented alien. On December 6,

Case 3:06-cv-01313-L-LSP Document 12 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Due to the passage of time, the court file of this case has been destroyed. (Pet. Ex.

A.) However, the United States Attorney’s Office file is available, and the nonprivileged

portions were appended to the government’s response. (Resp. at 2 n.1 & Ex. 1.)

2 According to the government, Petitioner was represented by the Federal Defenders

(Resp. at 2 n.2 & Ex. 1B), but Federal Defenders were unsuccessful in locating the defense

attorney’s name or file. 

3 This information, however, was incorrect. Pleading guilty to the drug charge

rendered Petitioner excludable and subject to deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sections 1182 and

1227(a)(2)(B)(ii). (Pineda-Kamariotis Decl. ¶ 5.) The immigration law provided for a waiver of

a drug-related conviction only for simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. (Id.)

90m5411/06cv1313

2

1990, when he was returning from a visit to Mexico, Petitioner was arrested by United States

Border Patrol agents. The following day, he appeared before Magistrate Judge R. Curtis McKee

in this district for his initial appearance and arraignment in case no. 90M5411.1

 Petitioner was

informed he was charged with a felony conspiracy to import and possess with intent to distribute

marijuana. The government alleged Petitioner was in possession of two bags containing a total

of 24.30 kilograms of marijuana, and that another two bags containing 25.34 kilograms of

marijuana were found in the area near his apprehension. 

Petitioner was advised by a “counseling attorney”2

 that the government was offering him

an option to plead guilty to a misdemeanor of simple possession of marijuana, which offer was

available only if he agreed immediately to plead guilty and be sentenced the same day. 

Petitioner was further informed that if he pled guilty, the maximum sentence would be one year

in custody, whereas if he was convicted on the felony charge, his sentence would be far greater. 

Petitioner insisted he was not guilty and was not in possession of the duffel bags with marijuana. 

However, he considered entering a guilty plea when the counseling attorney advised him his

version of the events would not be believed over the testimony of the arresting Border Patrol

agents. Petitioner then “related to the counseling attorney that [he] was not willing to accept the

government’s offer if this guilty plea would disqualify [him] from legalizing [his] immigration

status in the United States in the future.” (Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 6.) The counseling attorney

assured him that “since the offense . . . was a misdemeanor, this conviction would not preclude

[Petitioner] from legitimizing [his] immigration status in the future.”3

 (Id.) 

Case 3:06-cv-01313-L-LSP Document 12 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 This was bad advice, because the application for asylum Pineda filed was

apparently frivolous, and was rejected as untimely. “Because cancellation of removal is only

available in removal proceedings, some lawyers do what Pineda did to get their clients into

removal proceedings. [¶] It is common for unsavory attorneys to surrender people for

cancellation of removal by the asylum route . . ..” (Lawler Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) As of October 23,

2006, charges against Pineda were pending before the California Bar, and he voluntarily became

inactive. www.calbar.ca.gov (attorney search); see also Lawler Decl. Ex. A.)

90m5411/06cv1313

3

Based on this assurance, Petitioner pleaded guilty to count 2 of the complaint

(misdemeanor offense of possession of 24.30 kilograms of marijuana), and count 1 (felony

offense of importation of 24.30 kilograms of marijuana) was dismissed. (Id.; Resp. Ex. 1A, 1D.) 

Petitioner was immediately sentenced to five months in custody. (Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 6;

Resp. Ex. 1D.) After the completion of his sentence, Petitioner “was voluntarily returned to

Mexico.” (Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 8.) The following day, he re-entered the United States

“without inspection through the hills near the San Ysidro Port of Entry” and returned to his

home in Milbrae, California. (Id.)

Petitioner did not attempt to address his immigration status until January 1999, when he

retained Walter R. Pineda, an immigration attorney. Pineda informed Petitioner his

misdemeanor conviction, if proven by the government, would disqualify him from becoming a

lawful permanent resident. He advised Petitioner, however, that the records pertaining to the

misdemeanor had been destroyed, which would prevent the immigration officials from proving

it, and that Petitioner should proceed with his application to legalize his status.4

 (Id. ¶ 9 & Ex.

A.) 

On July 6, 2001, Pineda filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal

(“Asylum Application”) on behalf of Petitioner and his family. (Resp. Ex. 3.) In the Asylum

Application, Petitioner indicated he was married and had children. His wife was an

undocumented alien, as were all but one of his children. (Id. at 3-4, 9.) On August 30, 2001, the

Asylum Application was rejected because it was filed more than a year after Petitioner’s last

arrival in the United States, and because he did not show extraordinary circumstances for the

delay in filing the Application. (Id.) Petitioner was then placed in removal proceedings. (Id.)

/ / / / /

Case 3:06-cv-01313-L-LSP Document 12 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 Upon obtaining a 30-day extension of time to file a reply brief and filing his reply

on October 30, 2006, Petitioner requested the Court render a decision on his Petition within a

week, and if not within a week, at least within three weeks, to enhance Petitioner’s chances on

his appeal of the BIA decision to the Ninth Circuit, or in reopening the removal proceedings. 

(Reply at 3; Lawler Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.)

90m5411/06cv1313

4

On October 15, 2001, Pineda filed an Application for Cancellation of Removal and

Adjustment of Status (“Cancellation Application”), which the immigration judge denied on

September 20, 2005. (Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 10; Pet. Ex. C.) The Cancellation Application

was denied because Petitioner conceded he was subject to removal, the Asylum Application was

not being actively pursued, Petitioner’s designation of Mexico as the country of removal

conflicted with the Asylum Application, and because of Petitioner’s conviction for possession of

marijuana. (Pet. Ex. C at 2-3.) The immigration judge noted “a person applying for

cancellation of removal must demonstrate that he has not been convicted of an offense under”

certain sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and there was “no clear evidence

whether 30 grams or less [of marijuana was] the amount [Petitioner] did or did not possess” so as

to satisfy an exception in the law. (Id. at 3.) The judge granted Petitioner’s application for

voluntary departure because he had “no law enforcement history” in the five preceding years. 

(Id. at 4-5.) The date set for Petitioner’s voluntary departure was November 21, 2005. (Id. at 5.) 

This date has been extended until November 28, 2006. (See Lawler Decl. ¶ 4.) 

In October 2005, Petitioner hired a new immigration attorney and appealed from the

denial of the Cancellation Application. (Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶11; Pet. Ex. D.) Petitioner’s

appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was denied on October 6, 2006. (Lawler

Decl. ¶ 10.) Petitioner is currently pursuing either a challenge to the BIA decision or a

reopening of the removal proceedings before the BIA, which he believes would be enhanced if

this Court granted the instant Petition. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12.)5

DISCUSSION

“Federal courts have authority to issue the writ of coram nobis under the All Writs Act,

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).” United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1011 (9th Cir. 2005). The writ of

Case 3:06-cv-01313-L-LSP Document 12 Filed 11/21/06 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

90m5411/06cv1313

5

error coram nobis affords a remedy to attack a conviction when the petitioner, like the Petitioner

in the instant case (Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 13), has served his sentence and is no longer in

custody. Estate of McKinney By and Through McKinney v. United States, 71 F.3d 779, 781 (9th

Cir.1995). “Specifically, the writ provides a remedy for those suffering from the lingering

collateral consequences of an unconstitutional or unlawful conviction based on errors of fact and

egregious legal errors.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“To qualify for coram nobis relief, four requirements must be satisfied. Those

requirements are: (1) a more usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist for not

attacking the conviction earlier; (3) adverse consequences exist from the conviction sufficient to

satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III; and (4) the error is of the most

fundamental character.” Id. at 781-82 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Since Petitioner

failed to show valid reasons existed for the sixteen-year delay in attacking his conviction, the

Court does not address the remaining three elements.

Although the time for filing a petition for writ of coram nobis is not subject to a specific

statute of limitations, petitioners must “provide valid or sound reasons explaining why they did

not attack their sentences or convictions earlier.” Kwan, 407 F.3d at 1012. Petitioner has not

attacked his conviction before filing the instant Petition. (Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 14.) “[A]

coram nobis petition is subject to the equitable doctrine of laches which bars a claim if

unreasonable delay causes prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 1013 (quotation marks, citation

and alterations omitted). The government maintains the Petition is barred by laches because of

prejudice and because Petitioner did not show valid reasons for delay. The court agrees.

“If a respondent seeks dismissal of a coram nobis petition on the ground of laches, the

respondent bears the burden of showing he was prejudiced by the petitioner’s delay.” Id. The

government contends it has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the Petition or retry

Petitioner if the Petition is granted. Petitioner asserts that had he been properly advised about

the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, he would have insisted on his right to trial. 

(Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 12.) “In making a determination of prejudice, the effect of the delay

Case 3:06-cv-01313-L-LSP Document 12 Filed 11/21/06 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 The Court acknowledges the Report of Drug Property Collected, Purchased or

Seized, which shows the amount seized and laboratory analysis of a sample confirming that the

substance seized was marijuana, has been preserved in the United States Attorney’s file. (Resp.

Ex. 1G.)

90m5411/06cv1313

6

on both the government’s ability to respond to the petition and the government’s ability to mount

a retrial are relevant.” Telink, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 42, 48 (9th Cir. 1994).

Due to the delay, the court file has been destroyed (Pet. Ex. A), including the transcript of

Petitioner’s colloquy and sentencing, which would indicate whether Petitioner was advised on

the record regarding the consequences of his guilty plea. The documents identifying Petitioner’s

defense counsel are no longer available, and the evidence (marijuana) has been destroyed.6

 The

memories of the witnesses have faded. For example, Special Agent Lori Giannantonio no longer

has any recollection of the case, although she handled Petitioner’s arrest. (Giannantonio Decl.

¶¶ 7-8.) In addition, she is now employed in Pretoria, South Africa as the Deputy Immigration

and Customs Enforcement Attache, where she is expected to remain through December 2007. 

(Giannantonio Decl. ¶ 9.) This is sufficient to make a prima facie showing of prejudice.

Once the government makes a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the

petitioner to show either that the government actually was not prejudiced or that the petitioner

exercised reasonable diligence in filing the claim. Telink, 24 F.3d at 47. Petitioner argues

Giannantonio’s role was limited to transporting Petitioner to Metropolitan Correctional Center

(“MCC”) because she was not one of the Border Patrol Agents who initially apprehended

Petitioner. He argues Giannantonio’s testimony would therefore be irrelevant to any retrial. 

Although the Report of Investigation, signed by Giannantonio, states Petitioner was transported

to the MCC, it does not state who transported him. (Reply Ex. B.) Even if Giannantonio

transported Petitioner, the documents indicate she had a broader involvement in the case. 

Giannantonio was the DEA Case Agent and criminal investigator on the case. (Resp. Ex. 1F;

Reply Ex. B.) She “responded to the U.S. Border Patrol Imperial Beach Station and arrested”

Petitioner. (Reply Ex. B.) Accordingly, the Court rejects Petitioner’s argument that

Giannantonio’s recollection of the events would be irrelevant if Petitioner were retried. 

Case 3:06-cv-01313-L-LSP Document 12 Filed 11/21/06 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 Petitioner consulted Pineda in January 1999, but no immigration proceedings were

commenced until July 2001, a year and a half later. (Cf. Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 9 & Resp. Ex.

3.)

90m5411/06cv1313

7

Furthermore, Petitioner does not address the government’s contention that the lack of transcript

of Petitioner’s colloquy and sentencing and the inability to identify the defense counsel have

prejudiced its ability to respond to the Petition.

Likewise, Petitioner has not shown that he exercised reasonable diligence in filing his

Petition, see Telink, 24 F.3d at 47, or presented valid or sound reasons for not attacking his

conviction earlier, see Kwan, 407 F.3d at 1011, 1013. Petitioner explains he “did not seek to

invalidate his conviction and the sentence imposed earlier because [he] was not aware that this

conviction would render [him] ineligible for legalization of [his] status in the United Sates until

Mr. Pineda . . . advised [him] of this fact in January, 1999.” (Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 13.) It is

undisputed Petitioner became aware of the effect of his 1990 conviction when he consulted

Pineda for purposes of initiating immigration proceedings to legalize his status. The delay in

commencing those proceedings ultimately caused a sixteen-year delay in filing the instant

Petition. According to Petitioner’s declaration, legalization of his status was very important to

him in 1990. (See Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 6.) Promptly commencing the immigration

proceedings was the means to accomplish Petitioner’s goal of legalizing his status, which also

was bound to, and did, reveal whether his conviction would interfere with his goal. He offers no

explanation why he did not attempt to address his immigration status until 1999 – more than

eight years after his conviction.7

 He argues one of the requirements for adjustment of status is to

establish a continuous residence in the United States for a period of ten years. (Reply at 7.) 

However, Petitioner came to the United States in 1985 and continuously resided here since that

time. (Hernandez-Zarco Decl. ¶ 2.) He offers no explanation for sleeping on his rights until

1999.

Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing in case the court determined he was not

entitled to relief. An evidentiary hearing is required when (1) a petitioner “allege[s] specific

facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief; and (2) the petition, file and record of the case

Case 3:06-cv-01313-L-LSP Document 12 Filed 11/21/06 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

90m5411/06cv1313

8

cannot conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief.” United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d

873, 877 (9th Cir. 2004). Petitioner has not alleged any specific facts regarding the delay in

seeking to legalize his immigration status, which led to a sixteen-year delay in filing the instant

Petition. Furthermore, the Petition, file and record of the case show prejudice to the government

due to the delay. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing is not required.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2006

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-01313-L-LSP Document 12 Filed 11/21/06 Page 8 of 8