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 permanent resident alien from Guatemala, pleaded guilty to criminal sexual contact of a minor aged thirteen to eighteen. Following his plea, the Defendant sought to withdraw it, claiming he was not adequately informed of the immigration consequences, which included near-certain deportation due to the nature of the offense being classified as an "aggravated felony" under federal law (paras 1-2, 4).
Procedural History
- District Court, February 25, 2003: The Defendant was sentenced to three years of incarceration, which was suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation for three years. The court denied the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (paras 1-2).
- Court of Appeals, August 20, 2003: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court complied with Rule 5-303(E) by informing the Defendant that his plea "could" affect his immigration status. The court also declined to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, citing an insufficient record (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because neither the district court nor his attorney adequately informed him of the near-certain deportation consequences of his plea. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney's failure to provide specific advice on the immigration consequences (paras 1, 4, 20).
- State: Contended that the district court fulfilled its obligation under Rule 5-303(E) by informing the Defendant that his plea "could" affect his immigration status. The State also argued that the Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacked sufficient evidence in the record (paras 3, 6).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court fulfill its duty to inform the Defendant of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea under Rule 5-303(E) and federal due process?
- Did the Defendant's attorney provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to adequately advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea?
- Should the Defendant be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the district court satisfied its duty under Rule 5-303(E) and federal due process by informing the Defendant that his plea "could" affect his immigration status (para 11).
- The Court found that the Defendant's attorney had an affirmative duty to determine his immigration status and provide specific advice regarding the near-certain deportation consequences of the plea (para 19).
- The Court remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim (para 24).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Maes CJ., Serna, Bosson, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
The Court reasoned that the district court complied with Rule 5-303(E) by informing the Defendant that his plea "could" affect his immigration status, as the rule does not require more specific advice. Additionally, federal due process does not mandate trial courts to inform defendants of all collateral consequences, including deportation, which is considered a collateral consequence (paras 6-11).
However, the Court emphasized that defense attorneys have a heightened duty to advise non-citizen clients of the specific immigration consequences of a guilty plea, particularly when deportation is virtually certain. The Court held that failure to provide such advice constitutes deficient performance under the first prong of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 12-19).
The Court found that the appellate record established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, as the Defendant's attorney only advised him that his plea "could" affect his immigration status, which was misleading given the near-certainty of deportation. The Court also noted that the Defendant's prompt motion to withdraw his plea suggested he would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised (paras 20-22).
Given the insufficiency of the record to conclusively determine ineffective assistance, the Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The district court was instructed to retain jurisdiction over the Defendant until his appeals were exhausted to prevent immediate deportation (paras 22-24).