United States v. Oswaldo Trejo-Casas , 589 F. App'x 137 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4437
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
OSWALDO TREJO-CASAS, a/k/a Abraham Trejo-Martinez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(6:10-cr-00119-MGL-2)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: January 2, 2015
Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hannah R. Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oswaldo Trejo-Casas pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He was
sentenced to a total of 120 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but questioning whether the district court complied with the
requisites of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and, specifically, whether
Trejo-Casas was properly advised of the immigration consequences
of his guilty plea. Trejo-Casas was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed one. The
government has declined to file a brief. We affirm.
Before accepting Trejo-Casas’ guilty plea, the
district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully
satisfying the requirements of Rule 11 and ensuring that
Trejo-Casas’ plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a
sufficient factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Regarding the impact on his
immigration status, our review discloses that Trejo-Casas was
advised at the guilty plea hearing that his plea could result in
deportation, and that he indicated that he understood this
advisal. Finally, counsel asserts that Trejo-Casas’ Sixth
Amendment rights were violated because trial counsel failed to
2
advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. See
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). Unless an attorney’s
ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record,
ineffective assistance claims are not generally addressed on
direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th
Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit
sufficient development of the record. United States v.
Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because there
is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel
on the face of the record, we conclude that this claim should be
raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Trejo-Casas, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Trejo-Casas requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Trejo-Casas. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4