FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 8, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 48 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 10 -cv -0 07 54 -J TC, 1: 05 -cr- 00 47 9- JTC- AJB -3 CEDRIC LAMAR

JACKS ON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 8, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Cedric Lam ar J ack so n, a c ou ns el edfed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t he di st ric t

co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s pr o s e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce fo r co ns pi racy to c omm itsev eral sex tra ffi ck in g o ffen se s. We gran te d a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e is su e o f “ [w]hethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredby de nyin g t he cla im

th atJac ks on ’s pl ea was no t kno win g a ndvo lu nt ary as co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to advi se hi m th athe wou ldha ve to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r if he pl edgu il ty.” U

po n c aref ul rev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he parti es ’ br ie fs , we vac at e an d re m an d fo r ad di ti on al fact -fi nd in g. 1 To m ak e a s uc ces sf

ul cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l, a d efen da nt m us t s ho w (1) co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , and(2) th e d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce p reju di cedth e d efen se . Stri cklan d v . W as hi ng to n , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 20 64 (19 84 ). The Stri cklan d st an da rdap pl ie s t o acla im th ata pl ea was no t kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry

du e to in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Hil l v. Lo ckh ar t , 10 6 S . Ct. 3 66 , 37 0 (1 98 5) . Accor di ng ly, whe re a d efen danten te rs a pl ea b as ed on th e ad vi ce o f co un se l, “ th e v ol un tarin es s o f th e p le a d ep en ds on whet he r co un se l’s ad vi ce was withi n t he ran ge of c om pe te nc e d em an de d o f at to rn ey s i n cri m in al cas es .” Id. at 3 69 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Mor eo ve r, a d efen dantwho pl ed

We revie w de novo a claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel, which is a mix ed question 1 of law a nd fac t. Paynev. United States , 566 F.3d 1276, 1277 ( 11th Cir. 2009). 2gu il ty sati sf

ie s t he pre

jud ic e st an da rdof Stri cklan d by est ab li sh in g “ a rea so nabl e pr ob ab il it y

th at , bu t fo r co un se l’s erro rs , he wo ul d n otha ve pl ead edgu il ty and wou ldha ve in si st edon go in g t o t ria l.” Id. at 3 70 . Ja ck so n c on te nd s, u nd er the reas on in g o f Padil la v. Ken tu cky , 13 0 S . Ct. 14 73 (20 10 ), an d Bau de r v. Dep ’t o f Co rr . , 61 9 F .3d12 72 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), hi s co un se l’s erro ne ou s ad vi ce tha t h e wou ldno t h av e to reg is te r as a se x o ffen de r if he pl edgu il ty to the co ns pi racy char ge co ns ti tu te d c on st itut io na ll y de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce. Howe ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t re ach th e fac tu al de te rm in at io n of whet he r Ja ck so n’s co un se l m is advi se d h im reg ard in g t he sex off

en de r reg is tra ti on co ns eque nc es of p le ad in g g ui lty . Mor eo ve r, al th ou gh Jac ks on cla im s he wou ldno t h av e p le d g ui lt y bu t fo r co un se l’s al le ge d m is advi ce, the di st ric t co urt d idno t re ach th e fac tu al de te rm in at io n o f whe th er re jecti ng th e p le a b arg ai n wou ldha ve be enrat io na l u nd er the cir cu m st an ces . Se e Padil la , 13 0 S . Ct. at14 85 (“ [A] peti ti on er m

us t co nv in ce the co urt tha t a d eci si on to rejectth e p le a b arg ai n wou ldha ve be enrat io na l u nd er the cir cu m st an ces .”). If J ack so n c an no t es tabl is h b ot h t ha t co un se l m is advi se d h im an d tha t a de ci si on no t t o p le adgu il ty w ou ldhave be enrat io na l, h is cla im th athi s g ui lt y

pl ea was no t kno win g andvo lu nt ary du e to co un se l’s i ne ffec ti ve ne ss wil l fa il . Add it io na l fa ct -fi nd in g b y th e d is tri ctco urt i s t he refo re re qu ire d. Se e Aro n v .

3Uni te d Sta tes , 29 1 F .3d70 8, 7 14 –1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (no ti ng th at , if a § 22 55

m ov an t al le ge s fa ct s t ha t, i f true , wou lden ti tl e h im to rel ie f, th e d is tri ctco urt sh ou ldord er an ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d ru le on th e m eri ts of h is cla im ). If Ja ck so n c anm eethi s b ur de n o n t he se factua l i ss ue s, the co urt s ho ul d the n e xa m in e whe th er Padil la is retro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le he re, an d, i f so , det erm in e h ow Padil la an d Bau de r ap pl y

to th e fac ts as e st ab li sh ed . 2 VACATED an d REMANDED. 3

We pass no judgme nt on whether the district court should believe or disbelieve J ackson’ s 2 asser tions that he would not have pled guilty had counsel advised him that he would be require d to reg ister as a

sex offender . The Gove rnment’s motion to supplement the rec ord is DENI ED. 3 4