Hale v. State of North Dakota
2012 ND 148
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Garg, a non-citizen, faced potential deportation due to two Ward County criminal convictions.
- First case: in 1995 Garg pled guilty pro se to a class A misdemeanor after earlier attorneys withdrew; sentence was one year with probation withheld; later amended to six months suspended and probation.
- Second case: in 2000 Garg pled guilty to altering/forging a title (with theft charge dismissed); sentenced to one year suspended with probation.
- In 2011 Garg moved to withdraw both guilty pleas, claiming ineffective assistance under Padilla v. Kentucky for failing to advise on deportation consequences.
- The district court denied the motion, ruling Padilla not retroactive and claims insufficient to prove ineffective assistance or prejudice.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding Padilla retroactivity was not decided here and Garg failed to prove prejudice or ineffective assistance, especially given lack of representation in the first case and implied knowledge of deportation risk from the first case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Padilla apply retroactively to Garg's prior pleas? | Garg argues Padilla should apply to both cases. | State contends Padilla retroactivity undecided; court need not decide here. | Padilla retroactivity not decided; but claims fail regardless. |
| Was the 1995 pro se plea withdrawal error given counsel was not involved? | Garg asserts ineffective assistance for not having counsel advise on deportation. | Garg waived right to counsel and was unrepresented, so no duty of counsel to advise. | No abuse of discretion; Garg not represented, so no ineffective assistance against prior plea withdrawal. |
| Did Garg prove prejudice regarding the 2000 plea under Padilla? | If counsel failed to advise, Garg would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial. | Record shows Garg knew deportation risk from prior proceedings; prejudice not shown. | Prejudice not shown; district court did not abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (counsel must advise on deportation risk; governs Strickland standard)
- Dalman v. State, 520 N.W.2d 860 (N.D. 1994) (deportation is a collateral consequence not basis for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Dahl, 776 N.W.2d 37 (N.D. 2009) (right to counsel; effective assistance standard applies to review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice prong for guilty plea cases)
- Abdi v. State, 608 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 2000) (applies Strickland to North Dakota context)
- Klose v. State, 705 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 2005) (mixed questions of law and fact; standard of review)
- Wong v. State, 804 N.W.2d 382 (N.D. 2011) (review in postconviction context; standard of factual findings)
- Clark v. State, 621 N.W.2d 576 (N.D. 2001) (avoid addressing unnecessary retroactivity questions)
- State v. Jones, 812 N.W.2d 484 (N.D. 2011) (manifest injustice standard in withdrawal of guilty plea)