Diego Armando Alvarez Mendoza, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
16-1394
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- Mendoza pled guilty to possession of marijuana, waived on-the-record advisals including immigration consequences, and received a deferred judgment with unsupervised probation.
- He was later ordered removed from the U.S. by an immigration judge based on that plea; the BIA affirmed.
- Mendoza filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (alternatively coram nobis), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise on immigration consequences.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, permitted an amended petition, and denied relief; Mendoza appealed denial of habeas relief.
- Iowa law treats deferred-judgment defendants who complete probation as discharged, with records subject to expungement, and generally ineligible for postconviction relief; habeas relief requires a present restraint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of habeas corpus for deferred-judgment defendants discharged from probation | Mendoza: denial of any habeas avenue violates Iowa Const. art. I, §13; must be able to attack constitutionally invalid judgments | State: habeas is limited to persons restrained; Mendoza was discharged/expunged and not "restrained" as required by statute | Court: No habeas; statutes and precedent limit habeas to those "restrained"; Mendoza lacked a cognizable habeas claim and statutory requirements were not met |
| Equal protection challenge to differing remedies | Mendoza: disparate treatment (deferred-judgment successfully discharged vs. others) denies equal protection | State: classifications relate to statutory objectives; those in custody or on probation are not similarly situated; counsel/immigration distinctions are private conduct, not state action | Court: Equal protection claim fails; distinctions are rational and/or not state action |
| Requirement to advise defendants that deferred judgment forecloses postconviction/habeas relief | Mendoza: court/counsel must inform defendants that deferral can waive access to chapters 663 and 822 and habeas relief | State: no authority requiring such on-the-record advisals; defendants can seek relief while in constructive custody during probation | Court: No such advisal requirement; premise flawed and unsupported |
| Availability of postconviction relief after deferred judgment | Mendoza: no avenue exists to raise ineffective-assistance claims after discharge | State: by statute and precedent deferred judgment is not a conviction for postconviction relief purposes | Court: Postconviction relief unavailable; defendant balanced benefits of deferral against loss of appeal/postconviction remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez-Galarza v. State, 864 N.W.2d 122 (Iowa 2015) (habeas requires present restraint; immigration consequences alone insufficient)
- Daughenbaugh v. State, 805 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (deferred-judgment guilty plea is not a conviction for postconviction relief)
- McKeever v. Gerard, 368 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 1985) (defendant who accepts deferred judgment relinquishes certain rights, including appeal)
- Morales Diaz v. State, 896 N.W.2d 723 (Iowa 2017) (postconviction relief available where counsel was ineffective in failing to advise re: immigration consequences for an actual conviction)
- Davis v. State, 443 N.W.2d 707 (Iowa 1989) (constitutional "as required by law" language allows legislative restrictions on habeas)
- Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 2016) (equal protection analysis under state and federal constitutions may align)
- King v. State, 818 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2012) (equal protection claims require state action)