789 Fed.Appx. 64 (9th Cir. 2019), 18-16724, United States v. Ryan

Docket Nº:18-16724
Citation:789 Fed.Appx. 64
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rocio Aurora RYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE - Office of the U.S. Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff - Appellee Alex Ghibaudo, G Law, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant - Appellant
Judge Panel:Before: WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:December 31, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 64

789 Fed.Appx. 64 (9th Cir. 2019)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Rocio Aurora RYAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-16724

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 31, 2019

Argued and Submitted November 15, 2019 San Francisco, California

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE - Office of the U.S. Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff - Appellee

Alex Ghibaudo, G Law, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00227-RCJ-LRL-1

Before: WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, and LINN,[*] Circuit Judges.

Page 65

MEMORANDUM[**]

Rocio Ryan appeals from the denial of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis by the District of Nevada. We affirm the denial of the writ because Ms. Ryan has not shown that she was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Ms. Ryan bases her assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel on Mr. Brown’s alleged failure to inform her of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea and his alleged affirmative misrepresentation that there would be no such consequences. Ms. Ryan argues that she was prejudiced because, had she known, she would have rejected the plea and taken her case to trial. Ms. Ryan also argues that Mr. Brown failed to challenge the manner in which her confession was obtained, and thus failed to secure concessions from the prosecution.

To prevail, Ms. Ryan must show that: (1) Mr. Brown’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) this deficiency prejudiced her. See United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)), abrogated on other grounds by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 370, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). Under the standard Strickland analysis, the "defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

Prior to Mr. Browns appointment...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP