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, a non-U.S. citizen, entered a guilty plea to a charge of residential burglary, a third-degree felony, which under federal law, made deportation certain. After being placed in immigration removal proceedings and taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Defendant sought to void the criminal judgment on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that he was not adequately informed of the specific immigration consequences of his guilty plea.

Procedural History

• District Court of Socorro County, Kevin R. Sweazea, District Judge: Denied Defendant's motion to vacate the judgment on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his counsel's performance was deficient as he was not advised of the specific immigration consequences of his guilty plea, which would result in certain deportation. Claimed that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been properly informed.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Initially requested an evidentiary hearing and later conceded that Defendant’s trial counsel did not advise the Defendant of the specific immigration consequences of his guilty plea, agreeing that the plea was not freely, intelligently, or knowingly given.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's counsel's performance was deficient for failing to advise the Defendant of the specific immigration consequences of his guilty plea.
• Whether the Defendant was prejudiced as a result of his counsel’s deficient performance.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the Defendant's motion and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the Defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to advise him of the specific immigration consequences of his guilty plea.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Cynthia A. Fry authoring the opinion, and Judges Michael E. Bustamante and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, found that the Defendant's counsel's performance was deficient under the standard enunciated in State v. Paredez. The Court concluded that the Defendant's counsel failed to fulfill the affirmative duty to advise the Defendant of the specific immigration consequences of his guilty plea, particularly that deportation was virtually certain. The Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings to address whether the Defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance, as the district court had not addressed this issue.