Abdi v. State, 2021 ND 110

Abdi, a Somali speaker, was charged Jan 30, 2019 with luring/minor-related conduct after contacting an undercover agent he believed was a 14‑year‑old; initial hearing used a Somali interpreter and the court warned conviction/plea could lead to deportation.
On August 5, 2019 Abdi pleaded guilty to an amended charge: corruption/solicitation of minors (class C felony).
Abdi filed a post‑conviction application (Aug 11, 2020) to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him that deportation was virtually certain/mandatory.
At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified he repeatedly warned Abdi that a conviction or guilty plea could have immigration consequences and likely lead to custody/immigration detention.
The district court denied relief (Nov 9, 2020), finding counsel effective and the plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; the ND Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the INA did not clearly show mandatory removal and Padilla did not require more specific advice here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Padilla for failing to advise that the plea carried "virtual certainty" / mandatory deportation	Abdi: counsel failed to advise that guilty plea would lead to mandatory deportation, so advice was inadequate and plea was not voluntary	State: counsel warned Abdi of immigration consequences and potential deportation; the INA is not clear that this crime is an aggravated felony, so Padilla required only a warning of possible consequences	Court: INA unclear as to mandatory removal for this offense; counsel fulfilled Padilla by advising of immigration risk; no clear error in district court finding counsel effective
Whether Abdi’s plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary and whether manifest injustice requires withdrawal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)	Abdi: inadequate advice about deportation vitiated voluntariness of plea, so withdrawal is needed to avoid manifest injustice	State: because counsel’s advice was adequate and Abdi was informed by court and counsel, plea was valid and no manifest injustice exists	Court: Abdi did not prove ineffective assistance, so plea stands and district court did not abuse discretion denying withdrawal

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise when deportation consequences are clear; otherwise warn of risk)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (prejudice requires showing rejection of plea would have been rational; contemporaneous evidence considered)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (avoiding aggravated‑felony classification avoids mandatory removal but does not avoid all deportation risk)
State v. Awad, 2020 ND 66 (2020) (standard for manifest injustice review of plea withdrawal)
Lindsey v. State, 2014 ND 174 (2014) (prejudice showing for plea‑based ineffective assistance requires reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
Bahtiraj v. State, 2013 ND 240 (2013) (heavy burden on post‑conviction ineffective assistance claims)