Supreme Court of the United States of America
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 2015-01 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States of America TOMAS HAVERFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF EAGLETON, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF EAGLETON BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT Team 16 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT* *Counsel of Record February 1, 2016 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Was the evidence against the petitioner admissible pursuant to the Fourth Amendment where it was obtained after the conclusion of an extended lawful traffic stop, where the petitioner was told he was free to go after the stop, and where the search was conducted pursuant to consent? II. Did the petitioner receive effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment where his conviction subjected him to deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act and where his counsel informed him that deportation was a strong risk of pleading guilty? i TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... iv CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS OR STATUTES INVOLVED ....................................... v STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 5 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 7 I. THE PAWNEE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF PETITIONER TOMAS HAVERFORD AND HIS VEHICLE BY DEPUTY SANDERSON WERE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL. .................................................................................................................................................. 7 A. Deputy Sanderson Had Reasonable Suspicion to Extend the Lawful Traffic Stop of Tomas Haverford to Investigate Whether He Was Under the Influence of Drugs in the Operation of His Vehicle. ..................................................................................................................... 7 1. A Law Enforcement Officer May Extend a Traffic Stop to Investigate Additional Suspicious Factors That Come to the Officer’s Attention. ................................................................................................. 8 2. The Totality of the Circumstances Test Includes Consideration of Innocent Activity. ......................... 10 B. Petitioner’s Consent for Deputy Sanderson to Search His Vehicle Was Valid and Lawful. ............................................................................................................................................... 11 1. Haverford Was Not Being Illegally Seized When He Consented to Deputy Sanderson’s Search of His Vehicle. .................................................................................................................................... 12 2. Evidence that is Obtained Illegally May Still Be Allowed as Evidence in Court if it is Sufficiently Attenuated From the Illegal Gathering Activity. ............................................................................................ 14 a. A Short Temporal Proximity Between The Official Misconduct and the Seizure of Evidence is Not Dispositive of Taint. ....................................................................................................................... 15 b. Haverford’s Consent is a Sufficient Intervening Act of Free Will to Dissipate the Taint from Any Previous Fourth Amendment Violations. .......................................................................................... 16 II. THE PAWNEE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY REFUSED THE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE ATTORNEY MARK BRENDANAWICZ’S PERFORMANCE DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. ............................................................................................................................. 18 A. Haverford Cannot Prove Ineffective Assistance of Counsel because he was Not Subject a Constitutionally Deficient Performance. ............................................................................................ 18 ii 1. Mr. Brendanawicz Possessed and Provided the Level of Competence Necessary to Ensure Fundamental Fairness and a Just Result. ........................................................................................................ 19 2. Mr. Brendanawicz’s Warning to Haverford that there was a “Strong Risk” of Deportation was Reasonable because the Immigration Consequences of Pleading Guilty were Not Truly Clear. .................. 21 a. The Specificity of Advice that is Required by Counsel Depends on the Clarity of the Consequences. ........................................................................................................................................... 21 b. Immigration Law is Inherently Complex, and it is Beyond the Average Criminal Defense Attorney’s Scope of Knowledge and Practice. .......................................................................................... 22 c. This Case Presents a Question that Requires the Court to Look Beyond its Holding in Padilla. ..... 24 B. Even if Mr. Brendanawicz’s Performance was Constitutionally Deficient, Haverford was Not Prejudiced. ................................................................................................................................... 24 1. A Defendant Who Seeks to Withdraw a Guilty Plea can only Prove Prejudice if a Rational Defendant would have Rejected the Plea Bargain. ........................................................................................ 25 2. Where there is Overwhelming Evidence Against a Defendant and No Viable Defenses, Prejudice is Unlikely to be Proven. ................................................................................................................................ 26 3. A Judge’s Plea Colloquy that Warns a Defendant of Immigration Consequences Supports a Finding against Prejudice. .............................................................................................................................. 28 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 30 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) ............................................................................................................................................... 8, 9 Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) .................................................................................................................................... 14, 15, 16 California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621 (1991) ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1986) ............................................................................................................................................... 19, 25 I.N.S. v. Delgado, 446 U.S. 210 (1984) .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) ...................................................................................................................................... 25, 26 Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) .................................................................................................................................. 14 Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 7, 8, 9, 10 Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) ................................................................................................................................... passim Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011) .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) ....................................................................................................................... 11, 12 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ........................................................................................................................ passim Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) ............................................................................................................................... 10, 11 United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) ...................................................................................................................................