USA V. TIRSO MORALES, No. 11-16656 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-16656 D.C. No. CR-84-00106-SC v. MEMORANDUM * TIRSO MORALES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Samuel Conti, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 16, 2013 ** Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Tirso Morales appeals from the district court s judgment denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a writ of coram nobis de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm. * 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). Morales challenges his 1984 guilty-plea conviction on the ground that counsel was ineffective by failing to inform him of the possible immigration consequences of his guilty-plea as required under Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). The Supreme Court recently held that Padilla does not apply retroactively to individuals whose convictions, like Morales s, became final before the Supreme Court decided Padilla. See Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013). Therefore, the district court properly denied Morales coram nobis relief because he could not demonstrate that there has been an error of the most fundamental character. See Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1005 (internal quotations omitted). The government s motion, filed on February 25, 2013, to lift the stay and for summary affirmance is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 11-16656

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.