Court Opinion

ID: 9469591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:44:35.342906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:27.934862
License: Public Domain

JAMESON, District Judge:
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with most of Judge Mikva’s well considered opinion, including the conclusion that if the prosecution misled appellant with respect to the deportation consequences of his plea, the plea should be set aside in the interest of justice.
While it may be inferred from the statement of the Assistant United States Attorney when the plea was entered that appellant was misled, in view of the ambiguous nature of the comment, I would remand to the district court for further consideration, as was done in United States v. Briscoe, 391 F.2d 984 (D.C.Cir.1968). The comment of the Government attorney indicating that appellant would not be subject to deportation for misdemeanor convictions, was prefaced by the statement that “We haven’t explored it thoroughly, but it would appear that .... ” Following the attorney’s statement, the court said: “Let’s hear the matter, and you remind me if I do agree to accept the plea and make the findings.” Apparently nothing further was said at either the arraignment or the hearing at the time of sentencing with respect to the possibility of deportation.
In a supplemental memorandum filed with the transcript of the proceedings, Government counsel requested a remand similar to that in Briscoe, stating that the Government expected to “demonstrate that appellant was fully aware of the possibility of deportation as a consequence of his plea, and that the prosecutor made no representations regarding the collateral consequence in order to induce him to plead guilty.” Under the circumstances I would give both parties an opportunity to present additional evidence at a hearing on remand.