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 was charged with multiple counts, including attempted murder, related to events on August 31, 2005. He entered a no contest plea to one count of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor based on a plea agreement. The agreement included a sentencing cap, but the court later imposed a sentence exceeding this cap. The Defendant sought to withdraw his plea, claiming inadequate advice on immigration consequences and challenging the sentence's legality.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his counsel failed to adequately advise him on the immigration consequences of his plea and that the court erred by imposing a sentence exceeding the agreed maximum.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the district court erred in its conclusion regarding the adequacy of counsel's advice on immigration consequences and in imposing a sentence exceeding the plea agreement's guaranteed maximum.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's counsel adequately advised him regarding the immigration consequences of his plea.
• Whether the court erred in imposing a sentence that exceeded the guaranteed maximum set forth in the plea agreement.

Disposition

• The court vacated the Defendant's sentence and remanded to the district court with instructions to allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea and, absent another plea, proceed to trial.

Reasons

• The court found that the Defendant's counsel did not meet the requirements set forth in State v. Paredez for advising non-citizen clients on the immigration consequences of guilty pleas. Specifically, the counsel's general advice was deemed insufficient for informing the Defendant of the near certainty of deportation resulting from his plea. Additionally, the court determined that the district court erred by imposing a sentence exceeding the plea agreement's specified maximum, violating the terms of the agreement. As a remedy for these errors, the court concluded that the Defendant must be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea, aligning with the Defendant's request for relief.