Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01174/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Aragon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

United Scates Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cfr,:uir 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

V • ) 

/\ ?R 2 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1174 

) 

MANUEL ARAGON, ) 

(D.C. Nos. 88-CR-115, 90-C-653) 

(D. Colorado) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

We have before us Manuel Aragon's appeal from the district 

court's denial of his motion to set aside his guilty plea to two 

felony charges for illegal use of a communication facility to 

distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 u.s.c. S 843(b). Aragon 

* 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: 90-1174 Document: 010110105180 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 1 
argues that he has been denied due process and the effective assistance of counsel. The basis of this claim is that his counsel 

failed to advise him concerning the deportation consequences of 

his pleading guilty and that the attorney failed to ask the court 

for a recommendation against deportation. On appeal Aragon 

emphasizes his inability to speak or understand the English 

language, and alleges that there is nothing in the record to 

indicate his court-appointed attorney could speak or understand 

Spanish or had the assistance of an interpreter. Aragon contends 

that if he had known about the possibility of being deported, he 

would have entered a not guilty plea. 

An affidavit of the attorney who represented Aragon in the 

criminal proceeding states: (1) during his representation he 

became aware that Aragon was a Mexican citizen not legally present 

in the United States; (2) he knew the government would not allow 

Aragon to plead to a charge which might not result in deportation; 

and (3) he advised Aragon that deportation would be a likely 

consequence of his plea, but that the plea to reduced charges 

nevertheless was in Aragon's best interest. The government points 

to the record at the change of plea hearing in which the court 

asked Aragon questions in English concerning his personal history 

and whether he understood English. Defendant stated that he 

understood some but not all. At that hearing defendant was 

provided with an interpreter. 

Defense counsel stated then in open court that, with an 

interpreter present, he had gone over the information with the 

defendant, and that defendant stated he understood the charges 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1174 Document: 010110105180 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 2 
against him and wished to plead guilty. At the sentencing hearing, with an interpreter present, before imposing the sentence, 

the court specifically discussed the probability of defendant's 

deportation. Under these circumstances we hold that the district 

court properly denied the motion for a change of plea and found 

counsel was constitutionally adequate. 

Further, we agree with the government that it would have been 

unnecessary for the court to advise Aragon concerning deportation, 

which is a civil proceeding, not a part of the criminal proceeding 

before the court. See United States v. George, 869 F.2d 333, 337 

(7th Cir. 1989) (deportation collateral to criminal proceeding). 

Thus, even if counsel failed to inform Aragon of the likely 

deportation consequences arising out of his guilty plea in the 

criminal case, this would not constitute ineffective assistance of 

counsel. See id. at 337-38; Santos v. Kolb, 880 F.2d 941, 945 

(7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 873 (1990); United 

States v. DeFreitas, 865 F.2d 80, 82 (4th Cir. 1989); United 

States v. Campbell, 778 F.2d 764, 768 (11th Cir. 1985). We also 

agree that no plea for a recommendation against deportation could 

have been effective, because deportation is required when an alien 

is convicted of felony involving distribution of cocaine. See 8 

U.S.C. § 125l(a)(ll); United States v. Gonzalez, 582 F.2d 1162, 

1166 (7th Cir. 1978). Therefore no charge of counsel's inadequacy 

can be based upon the failure to make such a recommendation. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1174 Document: 010110105180 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 3