Barrie v. United States

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-CO-42 ISMAHIL BARRIE, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CF1-22491-13) (Hon. Jennifer M. Anderson, Trial Judge) (Submitted December 14, 2021 Decided August 11, 2022) Jenifer Wicks was on the opening brief for appellant. Ian A. Williams was on the reply brief. Raj Parekh, Acting United States Attorney, and Ronald L. Walutes, Jr., and Cristina C. Stam, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee. Before BECKWITH and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior Judge. * THOMPSON, Senior Judge: In March 2014, appellant Ismahil Barrie pled guilty to attempted first-degree sexual abuse and kidnapping. 1 In June 2019, * Judge Thompson was an Associate Judge of the court at the time of submission. She began her service as a Senior Judge on February 18, 2022. 2 through counsel, he filed a motion pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-110, in which he asserted that he would not have pled guilty but for the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and asked that his convictions be vacated. Specifically, appellant argued that trial counsel “failed to adequately investigate this matter and failed to adequately advise [appellant] about the direct [immigration] consequence of his plea in this case.” This appeal followed after the Superior Court denied appellant’s motion without a hearing on his claims. Appellant contends that the court erred in doing so and seeks a remand for a hearing. We agree that appellant was entitled to a hearing on his claim that his counsel provided inadequate advice about the immigration implications of pleading guilty to the charged offenses. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying the § 23-110 motion and remand for further proceedings. I. (…continued) 1 See D.C. Code §§ 22-3002 (first-degree sexual abuse), § 22-3018 (attempt), and § 22-2001 (kidnapping). 3 In exchange for appellant’s guilty plea, the government agreed not to indict him on any greater charges arising from the case, including first-degree sexual abuse, assault, and burglary. The government’s proffer during the plea proceeding explained that appellant had earlier been in a romantic relationship with the complainant, S.L., and had remained in contact with her after the relationship ended. He visited her home with her permission on December 22, 2013, sometime in the afternoon. Later that evening and into the early hours of December 23, 2013, appellant began texting and calling her. Sometime between approximately 3:00 and 4:00 that morning, he entered her apartment while she was sleeping, confronted her in her bed, accused her of seeing another man, refused to leave her apartment when she told him to, and eventually dragged her into a closet, where he detained her against her will for about two hours and covered her …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals