No. 19-____ In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner, v. HECTOR SEBASTION NUNEZ-DIAZ, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MARK BRNOVICH ORAMEL H. (O.H.) SKINNER Attorney General Solicitor General DREW C. ENSIGN Deputy Solicitor General JOSEPH A. KANEFIELD Counsel of Record Chief Deputy and ANTHONY R. NAPOLITANO Chief of Staff ROBERT J. MAKAR Assistant Attorneys General BRUNN W. ROYSDEN III OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA Division Chief ATTORNEY GENERAL 2005 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 542-5025 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTION PRESENTED In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) and Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), this Court held that lawful permanent residents that received deficient advice regarding immigration-law consequences of a plea can assert claims under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Although this Court has not yet addressed how these precedents apply to unlawfully present aliens, the lower courts are deeply divided as to how they do. Respondent, an unauthorized alien, asserted a Padilla/Lee claim. It is undisputed that he had no substantive right to remain in the United States, and was thus subject to deportation at any time. Respondent also submitted no evidence whatsoever that he had a viable defense either against the criminal charges or deportation if he were acquitted. The Arizona Supreme Court nevertheless extended Padilla and Lee to unauthorized aliens and held that Respondent had established prejudice under Strickland. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Respondent is categorically barred from establishing Strickland prejudice for a Padilla/Lee claim because, as an unauthorized alien, he is without any legal right to remain in the United States. 2. Whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in finding Strickland prejudice, where inter alia there was no evidence that Respondent had a viable defense either to the criminal charges or deportation. ii STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS State v. Nunez-Diaz, CR-18-0514-PR (Ariz.) (opinion affirming post-conviction relief filed July 16, 2019). State v. Nunez-Diaz, 1 CA-CR 16-0793 PRPC (Ariz. App.) (opinion affirming post-conviction relief filed September 18, 2018). State v. Nunez-Diaz, CR2013-420489-001 DT (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct.) (post-conviction relief ruling entered December 23, 2015). State v. Nunez-Diaz, CR2013-420489-001 DT (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct.) (judgment and suspension of sentence entered July 22, 2013). iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS ........ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... viii OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ......................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..... 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 6 Factual Background ............................................ 6 1. Nunez-Diaz Is Arrested And Charged With Drug Crimes .................... 6 2. Nunez-Diaz Pleas To A Lesser Charge ..................................................... 7 Procedural Background ....................................... 8 1. Superior Court Grants Post- Conviction Review Relief ........................ 8 2. The Court Of Appeals Affirms ................ 9 3. The Arizona Supreme Court Grants Review, Rejects The Categorical Bar, And Finds Strickland Prejudice ... 10 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ............... 12 I. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT JOINED THE WRONG SIDE OF A DEEP, PERSISTENT, AND LOPSIDED SPLIT.......... 12 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS–Continued A. The Decision Below Is Wrongly Decided Because Strickland Prejudice Cannot Exist Without An Underlying Right .......... 12 B. The Lower Courts Are Deeply Split As To Whether Unauthorized Aliens Can Establish Prejudice Under Strickland ....... 16 1. Majority Position Recognizing A Categorical Bar ..................................... 16 2. Minority Position Rejecting Categorical Bar ..................................... 18 C. The Arizona Supreme Court Erred In Concluding Lee Resolved The Split ............ 20 II. ASSUMING PREJDUICE IS COGNIZABLE UNDER STRICKLAND, THERE IS A FURTHER SPLIT AS TO WHETHER SUCH PREJUDICE IS PRESUMED OR MUST BE PROVEN ............. 21 A. The Arizona Supreme Court Wrongly Presumed Prejudice, Establishing An Effectively Irrebuttable Presumption ........ 22 B. The Arizona Court’s Decision Splits With The Highest Courts Of Iowa And Massachusetts ............................................. 28 III. THE IMPORTANT ISSUES PRESENTED MERIT REVIEW ............................................... 30 A. These Issues Are Highly Recurrent— And Likely To Become More So .................. 31 B. The Immigration Context Further Militates In Favor Of Review ..................... 34 v TABLE OF CONTENTS–Continued C. There Is No Need To Permit Further Percolation ................................................... 35 IV. THIS CASE PRESENTS AN IDEAL VEHICLE TO RESOLVE THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS .............................. 36 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 37 APPENDIX Appendix A Opinion in the Supreme Court of Arizona (July 16, 2019) .......................... 1a Appendix B Memorandum Decision in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One (September 18, 2018) ............. 19a Appendix C Order Under Advisement - Post Conviction Relief Ruling in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (December 23, 2015) ............... 27a Appendix D Suspension of Sentence - Unsupervised Probation in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (July 22, 2013) ........................ 35a Appendix E Waiver of Preliminary Hearing with Plea Agreement in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (July 22, 2013) ........................ 41a vi TABLE OF CONTENTS–Continued Appendix F Release Questionnaire in the Maryvale Justice Court, State of Arizona, Maricopa County (July 2, 2013) .......................... 51a Appendix G Amended Petition for Post- Conviction Relief in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (September 10, 2014) ............. 59a Appendix H Response to Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (October 24, 2014) .................. 88a Appendix I Evidentiary Hearing - Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings before the Honorable Phemonia L. Miller in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (October 27, 2015) .................. 96a Appendix J Petition for Review in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One (November 22, 2016) ............ 153a Appendix K Response to Petition for Review in the Supreme Court of Arizona (December 10, 2018) ............. 172a vii TABLE OF CONTENTS–Continued Appendix L Respondent’s Supplemental Brief in the Supreme Court of Arizona (March 25, 2019) .................. 191a Appendix M Brief of Amici Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the Pima County Public Defender, and the Federal Public Defender for the District of Arizona in Support of Respondent in the Supreme Court of Arizona (April 8, 2019) ....................... 214a Appendix N Brief of the Arizona Attorney General as Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court of Arizona (April 8, 2019) ....................... 243a Appendix O Oral Argument Schedule (May 7, 2019) ........................ 258a viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aguirre v. I.N.S. 79 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1996) ...................................... 34 Commonwealth v. Marinho 464 Mass. 115 (Mass. 2013) ....................... 14, 19, 29 Coronado-Durazo v. I.N.S. 123 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................. 7 Diaz v. State 896 N.W.2d 723 (Iowa 2017) ...................... 14, 19, 28 Garcia v. State 425 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2013) ................................. 18 Gerbier v. Holmes 280 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2002) .................................... 34 Gutierrez v. United States 560 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2014) .......................... 17 Harrington v. Richter 562 U.S. 86 (2011) ...................................... 23, 24, 33 Lee v. United States 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) .................................... passim Lockhart v. Fretwell 506 U.S. 364 (1993) ........................................ passim Martinez v. Holder 557 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................ 32 Missouri v. Frye 566 U.S. 134 (2012) ................................................ 31 Nix v. Whiteside 475 U.S. 157 (1986) ................................................ 13 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES–Continued Padilla v. Kentucky 559 U.S. 356 (2010) .................................. 2, 4, 20, 27 People v. Gomez-Perez No. 319745, 2015 WL 1227721 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015) ......................................................... 18 Rosario v. State 165 So. 3d 672 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) .............. 18 State v. Guerrero 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ................ 17 Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .......................................... 15, 22 Texas v. United States 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) .................................. 34 United States v. Arce-Flores No. CR15-0386JLR, 2017 WL 4586326 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2017) ........................................ 19, 30 United States v. Batamula 823 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2016)