Cun-Lara v. State
126 Haw. 541
Haw. App.2012Background
- Cun-Lara was charged in 2006 with unlawful methamphetamine trafficking, promoting a dangerous drug, and unlawful use/possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia.
- At the Change-of-Plea Hearing (July 23, 2007), Cun-Lara pled no contest to paraphernalia, signed an English form, and stated he understood the proceedings.
- DHS issued a removal warrant in 2009; Cun-Lara moved to withdraw his plea and sought post-conviction relief in November 2009, while also attempting to vacate related judgment.
- The circuit court denied Cun-Lara’s Rule 40 petition as patently frivolous without a hearing; Cun-Lara appealed alleging ineffective assistance and lack of interpreter.
- The appellate court held Cun-Lara’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, that counsel’s deportation-related advice was not ineffective, and that an interpreter was not required given the record of Cun-Lara’s English comprehension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cun-Lara’s no-contest plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. | Cun-Lara claims lack of interpreter and ineffective counsel | Castillo adequately advised; immigration consequences not clearly deportation | Plea found knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. |
| Whether Castillo’s deportation-advice satisfied Padilla requirements. | Padilla requires accurate deportation guidance by counsel | Immigration consequences not | Advice deemed sufficient; not colorably ineffective. |
| Whether no-interpreter claim requires reversal of the plea. | Lack of interpreter impaired understanding | Record shows Cun-Lara understood English; interpreter not required | Record supports adequate understanding; no reversible error. |
| Whether denial of the Rule 40 petition without an evidentiary hearing was proper. | Petition presented colorable claims needing a hearing | Petition patently frivolous and unsupported | affirmed denial without a hearing. |
| Whether Cun-Lara stated a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. | Counsel failed to explain immigration consequences and obtain interpreter | Counsel’s duty limited to informing of possible deportation; not ineffective | No colorable claim of ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (advising noncitizens on deportation consequences is constitutionally required when clear)
- State v. Wakisaka, 102 Hawai'i 504 (2003) (two-part Strickland test; effective assistance standard in Hawaiʻi)
- Barnett v. State, 91 Hawai'i 20 (1999) (colorable claim standard for Rule 40 petitions)
- State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai'i 63 (2000) (knowing, intelligent waiver assessment in pleas)
- People v. Osuna, 436 N.W.2d 405 (Mich. 1988) (transcript shows defendant understood English regarding waivers)