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 1992, the Defendant pleaded guilty to two felony charges, which he claims led to his deportation from the United States. In 2009, after being arrested for reentering the country without authorization, the Defendant sought to set aside the 1992 criminal judgment, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not being advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas.

Procedural History

• District Court of Lincoln County, Karen L. Parsons, District Judge: Denied Defendant's petition for a writ of coram nobis and motion for reconsideration, finding the Defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and that the petition was untimely.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his 1992 trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas, claiming he would not have pleaded guilty had he been properly informed.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant did not meet his burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel and that the petition for a writ of coram nobis was properly denied.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's petition for a writ of coram nobis and motion for reconsideration on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the Defendant's petition was untimely.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's writ petition and motion for reconsideration.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, Judge (Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, concurring; Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge, dissenting), the Court concluded that the Defendant failed to meet his burden of proof regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found no evidence beyond the Defendant's assertions to prove that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he suffered prejudice as a result. The Court also agreed with the State that the district court's finding of untimeliness was incorrect but upheld the denial based on the merits of the ineffective assistance claim. Judge Kennedy dissented, arguing that the procedure undertaken by the district court was faulty and that evidence existed which could have supported the Defendant's claims, suggesting a remand for further review.