Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02344/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02344-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Olayiwola Ogunbiyi
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

., 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Uaited States C.Ourt of Appeals 

Ti,rub Grcnit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JAN - - 1990 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

OLAYIWOLA OGUNBIYI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-2344 

) (D.C. No. 86-CR-269) 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Appellant appeals from an order of the district court denying 

his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. In 1986, appellant 

pled guilty to two counts of a six-count indictment charging him 

with making a false statement in order to obtain low income 

housing assistance and falsely representing that he was a United 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2344 Document: 01019958717 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 1 
, 

States citizen. He was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment 

on each count to be served concurrently and ordered to make 

restitution to the United States Department of Housing and Urban 

Development in the amount of $15,900. He has completed service of 

the sentences but has not made restitution. 

In his petition, appellant claims he was denied effective 

assistance of counsel when he entered his guilty plea because he 

was not advised that a conviction would mean he could be deported. 

The district court held that a trial court is not required to 

advise a defendant of the possible deportation consequences of a 

plea. It need only advise a defendant of the direct consequences 

of the conviction in order to satisfy the due process concerns 

that a plea be entered knowingly and with full understanding of 

the consequences. The cour t noted that appellant was under a 

deportation order due to an earlier state court conviction of a 

crime of moral turpitude at the time he entered his plea. 

Further, the court found it "unbelievable" that appellant did 

not know of the possible deportation consequences due to the 

magistrate's statement at his detention hearing that "if convicted 

of any of the charges here, ... he will then be convicted of 

felonies and can be deported on that charge alone." Finally, the 

court noted that appellant did not claim that he was not guilty of 

the crimes to which he pled. 

On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in its 

ruling and that he is not guilty of the charges. We will not 

consider appellant's argument that he is not guilty. Arguments 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2344 Document: 01019958717 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 2 
raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered. Baker 

v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 650, 663 (10th Cir. 1986). 

For substantially the reasons stated therein, the judgment of 

the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2344 Document: 01019958717 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 3