The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-56605•Maria Del Rio Rocio Jiminez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
11-56605Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 1, 2013
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DEL RIO ROCIO JIMINEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
and LAURA DUFFY, U.S. Attorney,
Southern District, San Diego,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 11-56605
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01528-JAH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Del Rio Rocio Jiminez appeals from the district court’s judgment
denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
AUG 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-56605 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th
Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
Jiminez challenges her 2009 guilty-plea conviction on the ground that
counsel was ineffective by failing to inform her of the possible immigration
consequences of her plea, as required under Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473
(2010). However, because Jiminez’s conviction became final before the Supreme
Court decided Padilla, she cannot rely on that case to establish that counsel
performed deficiently. See Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013)
(holding that Padilla does not apply retroactively). Moreover, Jiminez cannot
demonstrate prejudice because she was informed of the possible immigration
consequences by the plea agreement and at the plea colloquy. See Lafler v.
Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012) (to establish prejudice, “a defendant must
show the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent
advice”).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.