Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02197/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO OROPEZA,

Movant,

CASE NO. 10 cr 307 BEN

CASE NO. 11 cv 2197 BEN

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR

CORRECT SENTENCE

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Roberto Oropeza has filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set

aside, or correct his sentence. The motion is denied.

Oropeza was sentenced to 70 months in prison following his guilty-plea

conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. The sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. United States v.

Oropeza, No. 10-50428, 451 Fed. App’x. 653 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011). Raising three

grounds, Oropeza now seeks § 2255 relief.

Oropeza first claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues

that his attorney failed to investigate and correct his prior state convictions because

his prior state convictions occurred without counsel’s advice of potential adverse

collateral immigration consequences. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided

Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473. Padilla holds that an attorney must advise his

1

Case 3:11-cv-02197-BEN Document 2 Filed 03/27/14 Page 1 of 3
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

criminal client of the immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea. Relying

on Padilla, Oropeza claims that since his earlier state convictions were based on

flawed guilty pleas, his attorney in this case had a duty to go back and collaterally

attack the state convictions as part of his representation on the federal charge in the

present case. He claims his attorney’s failure to do so here is, in effect, a double

Padilla violation.

It was an open question at the time Oropeza filed this motion. It is now a

closed question. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Padilla does not

apply retroactively. See Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013). 

Chaidez holds that Padilla does not apply retroactively and that “defendants whose

convictions became final prior to Padilla . . . cannot benefit from its holding.” Id.;

see also Torres v. United States, No. 11-35950, slip op., __ Fed. App’x. __ (9th Cir.

Mar. 14, 2014) (affirming denial of § 2255 motion because Chaidez forecloses

collateral attack on convictions predating Padilla); United States v. Vy Thi Thach,

No. 11-35435, slip op., 515 Fed. App’x. 668 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2013) (affirming denial

of writ of coram nobis because Chaidez applies to collateral attacks on federal

convictions). Because his state convictions became final earlier than 2010 (the year

Padilla was decided), Chaidez forecloses Oropeza’s claim of ineffective assistance

of counsel in this case.1

Oropeza next claims relief based upon his assertion that the Ninth Amendment

and the Vienna Convention were violated when his attorney did not advise him of

his right to contact the Mexican Consulate. The arrest record provides clear

evidence that Oropeza was advised by arresting officers of his Vienna Convention

rights to contact the Mexican Consulate. See Exhibit “A” to Government’s

Response and Opposition (filed 3/2/12) at Dkt. 54-1. There is no authority cited, or

found, to support his claim that his counsel should have advised or re-advised him of

1

 Because Chaidez bars the way to collaterally attacking his prior state court convictions, his

motion to stay and abey this case (Dkt. No. 48) is also denied.

2

Case 3:11-cv-02197-BEN Document 2 Filed 03/27/14 Page 2 of 3
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

the right. There is also no authority cited, or found, that supports his claim that the

Ninth Amendment grants an alien a right to contact his country’s consulate upon

arrest in the United States. Thus, there is no basis for claiming ineffective assistance

where his counsel fails to do so. This second claim does not merit § 2255 relief.

Oropeza finally claims that his counsel failed to advise him of the effect of his

guilty plea waiver of the rights to appeal and collaterally attack. However, Oropeza

pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. With no plea agreement, there was no

waiver of appeal and collateral attack rights. In fact, at the sentencing hearing, this

Court specifically advised Oropeza that he did have a right to appeal. Thus, there

was no waiver issue and his counsel was not ineffective for failing to explain the

non-existent waiver. The third claim does not merit § 2255 relief.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the conclusions set forth above, Oropeza’s Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence is DENIED.

A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the petitioner has made

a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and reasonable jurists

could debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the

issues presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335 (2003). This Court finds that Oropeza has not made the

necessary showing. A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

3

Case 3:11-cv-02197-BEN Document 2 Filed 03/27/14 Page 3 of 3