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 1997, Martin Ramirez pleaded guilty to possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and two other misdemeanors. He was advised by his public defender to plead guilty, with the understanding that his sentence would be to time already served. Ramirez was not informed by his attorney about the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas. In 2009, Ramirez discovered that his guilty pleas made him inadmissible to the United States. He sought to vacate his guilty pleas on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting that he was not advised of the immigration consequences of his pleas (paras 3, 5).

Procedural History

• District Court: Denied Ramirez's writ to vacate his guilty pleas, reasoning that Paredez did not apply retroactively (para 5).
• Court of Appeals: Held that Paredez and its federal corollary, Padilla v. Kentucky, apply retroactively in the State of New Mexico (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Respondent (Ramirez): Argued that his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas, constituting ineffective assistance of counsel. Contended that had he been aware of these consequences, he would not have pleaded guilty (paras 3, 5).
• Respondent-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Initially contended that Paredez does not apply retroactively, opposing Ramirez's petition for writ of error coram nobis to vacate his guilty pleas on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the holding in Paredez, requiring criminal defense attorneys to advise noncitizen clients of the specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty, applies retroactively to cases prior to its decision.
• Whether Ramirez has a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel that could justify the withdrawal of his guilty pleas due to not being advised of the immigration consequences (paras 1-2).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that Paredez applies retroactively to 1990 and granting Ramirez the opportunity to claim ineffective assistance of counsel and seek withdrawal of his guilty pleas (para 18).

Reasons

• The Court, per Justice Chávez, held that the requirements for attorneys to inform their clients about the immigration consequences of guilty pleas were not new in 1997, as they were established in 1990. The Court distinguished its position from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chaidez v. United States, which held that Padilla v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively in federal courts. The New Mexico Supreme Court found that since New Mexico had required such advisements since 1990, Paredez did not announce a new rule and thus applies retroactively. The Court concluded that Ramirez's attorney's failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards existing at the time of his plea. The Court remanded the case to the district court to allow Ramirez to seek withdrawal of his guilty pleas based on this ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 7-17).