DIAZ v. the STATE.
343 Ga. App. 19
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jose Soriano Diaz, a Dominican Republic citizen, was arrested for possession of a controlled substance and DUI and, after jury selection began, pleaded guilty to both charges on June 7, 2016.
- A guilty plea to the drug possession charge carries mandatory deportation under federal immigration law.
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor expressly warned Diaz he would be deported; defense counsel said immigration might take Diaz within 72 hours or he might be released if immigration did not take him immediately.
- Diaz later moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing plea counsel ineffectively advised him regarding immigration consequences, causing him to plead guilty.
- The trial court denied the motion; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether Diaz proved ineffective assistance under Strickland, focusing on prejudice (whether he would have gone to trial but for counsel’s advice).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Diaz failed to show prejudice because he was aware of immigration risks from sources other than plea counsel and thus could not establish a reasonable probability he would have pleaded differently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel’s immigration advice constituted ineffective assistance under Strickland | Diaz: counsel failed to properly advise about deportation risk, rendering plea involuntary | State: even if counsel erred, the prosecutor and record informed Diaz of deportation risk; Diaz knew of immigration risk from other sources | Court: Prejudice not shown; denial of motion affirmed |
| Whether Diaz proved prejudice (would have gone to trial but for counsel’s errors) | Diaz: would not have pleaded guilty absent counsel’s bad advice | State: Diaz was aware of immigration consequences from the prosecutor and other sources, so no reasonable probability he'd go to trial | Court: No reasonable probability shown; prejudice prong fails |
| Whether Encarnacion controls to require reversal/remand | Diaz: Encarnacion supports relief where counsel misadvised about deportation certainty | State: Encarnacion addressed deficient performance only; this case fails on prejudice | Court: Encarnacion limited to deficiency; here prejudice dispositive, so no relief |
| Whether remand required for further factfinding on ineffective assistance claim | Diaz: trial court did not make detailed findings on counsel’s performance | State: appellate record suffices to determine prejudice absence | Court: No remand required; record shows defendant cannot establish Strickland prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Gomez v. State, 300 Ga. 571 (applying Strickland to guilty-plea withdrawal)
- Burrell v. State, 301 Ga. 21 (no remand required if record shows Strickland cannot be met)
- Suggs v. State, 272 Ga. 85 (trial-court factual findings accepted unless clearly erroneous)
- Franklin v. State, 291 Ga. App. 267 (standard of review for plea-withdrawal denial)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (prejudice inquiry requires case-by-case totality assessment)
- Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391 (defendant must show unawareness of immigration risks from other sources to prove prejudice)
- Encarnacion v. State, 295 Ga. 660 (deficiency prong satisfied where counsel minimized near-certain deportation; did not resolve prejudice)
- State v. Martinez, 291 Ga. 455 (trial court’s direct immigration admonition can defeat prejudice claim)