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

• In 2002, the defendant, a Venezuelan immigrant, pleaded guilty to criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree. She received a conditional discharge, completed it successfully, and the matter was dismissed in 2005. Later, the defendant discovered that her guilty plea made her deportable. In 2018, she petitioned to set aside her guilty plea, arguing her attorney failed to inform her of the immigration consequences of her plea (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the guilty plea should be set aside due to ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that her attorney failed to inform her of the immigration consequences of her plea and that there was a conflict of interest. Additionally, she contended that the district court erred by presuming regularity in the plea proceedings despite the absence of a written plea agreement or plea colloquy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court correctly denied the defendant's motion to set aside her guilty plea, arguing that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice necessary to support her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The state emphasized the strength of its case and the benefits of the plea agreement to the defendant, the lack of evidence indicating the defendant intended to go to trial before receiving the plea offer, and the defendant's delay in taking action to become a United States citizen until 2017 (paras 13-14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to her attorney's failure to inform her of the immigration consequences of her guilty plea.
• Whether the district court erred in presuming regularity in the plea proceedings despite the absence of a written plea agreement or plea colloquy.

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court’s denial of the defendant's motion to set aside her guilty plea and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 21).

Reasons

• Per Bogardus, J. (Yohalem and Baca, JJ., concurring): The court found that the defendant's attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise her of the immigration consequences of her plea, which constituted deficient performance under the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court determined that the defendant demonstrated prejudice, as there was a reasonable probability she would not have accepted the plea had she been properly informed of the immigration consequences. The court emphasized the importance of a defendant's understanding of the severe immigration consequences of a guilty plea and found that the district court failed to consider the harshness of deportation and the defendant's strong connections to the United States, which likely would have influenced her decision to go to trial. The court concluded that the defendant's plea was not knowing and voluntary and should be set aside, thus not addressing the defendant's additional claims of error (paras 4-20).