AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant entered a no contest plea to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a fourth-degree felony, and was sentenced to eighteen months of supervised probation after an eighteen-month imprisonment sentence was suspended. The Defendant sought to withdraw his plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not being advised of the specific immigration consequences of his conviction, which could likely result in deportation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, January 31, 2008: Accepted Defendant's no contest plea and sentenced him to eighteen months imprisonment, suspended for supervised probation (para 2).
• District Court, July 9, 2009: Denied Defendant's petition to vacate and set aside the plea or, alternatively, for a writ of error coram nobis (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that his plea should be set aside or withdrawn due to ineffective assistance of counsel, as he was not advised of the specific immigration consequences of his conviction, which would result in almost certain deportation (para 3).
• State: Contended that the district court could exercise jurisdiction to hear the Petition pursuant to Rule 1-060(B), rather than habeas corpus relief under Rule 5-802, and that Defendant had not shown that habeas corpus relief was unavailable or inadequate (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court could exercise its jurisdiction to review the petition for coram nobis relief pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) while the Defendant was within the custody or restrictions imposed by his sentence (para 13).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals determined that the district court could not exercise its jurisdiction to review the petition for coram nobis relief pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) because such relief could only be granted pursuant to habeas corpus proceedings under Rule 5-802 while the Defendant was within the custody or restrictions imposed by his sentence. The court reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the Rule 1-060(B) petition without prejudice (para 13).

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring): The court reasoned that the Defendant's petition under Rule 1-060(B) was precluded because he had not demonstrated that habeas corpus relief was unavailable or inadequate. The court highlighted that Rule 1-060(B) is not available unless the petitioner demonstrates that relief through habeas corpus proceedings is unavailable or otherwise inadequate. Since the Defendant was still serving his sentence of probation when he filed the Petition, and did not assert that habeas corpus relief was unavailable or inadequate, the court concluded that the district court could not exercise its jurisdiction to review the petition for coram nobis relief under Rule 1-060(B). The court also noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review or construe the Petition as a petition for habeas corpus, as such decisions are left to the discretion of the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 5-802(H)(2) and Rule 12-501 (paras 4-12).