An End-Run Around Padilla? Batamula II (CA5, En Banc)

U.S. v. Batamula (Batamula II, en banc,) May 3, 2016 - "Batamula failed to allege facts or adduce evidence showing that the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. The record conclusively established that he was deportable before his guilty plea, and he remained so afterward. Thus, his prejudice claim is frivolous. The district court was correct to summarily dismiss the claim without holding an evidentiary hearing."

Dennis, C.J., and Graves, C.J., dissenting: "The en banc majority’s triple derelictions of its appellate court duties in a single opinion may be a record-breaker. ... [T]he majority opinion fails to correct the district court’s threshold error of law — its holding that a judicial admonition of possible deportation during a guilty-plea colloquy automatically erases any prejudice caused a defendant by the deficient performance of his counsel. This holding was reversible error for the reasons assigned by the panel opinion. See United States v. Batamula, 788 F.3d 166 (5th Cir. 2015). The majority opinion, however, leaves the error unaddressed and uncorrected by passing over it in silence as it attempts to uphold the district court’s judgment on other grounds. In doing so, the majority opinion tacitly encourages other judges to repeat the same error. If the error becomes widely imitated by other district courts, noncitizens’ ineffective assistance of counsel claims established by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), will be severely undermined in our circuit. ... The majority defaults on its duty to correct errors of law committed by district courts and supersedes the function of the district court in conducting evidentiary hearings and making factual findings in the first instance. As a result, the majority unconscionably casts Batamula out in its error-filled decision based on rank speculation as to Batamula’s fate in any future immigration proceedings. Because this resolution is inconsistent with this court’s precedent, the requirements of § 2255, and the clear directives of the Supreme Court, I must respectfully dissent." [Emphasis added.]