Isac v. State, 996 N.W.2d 296

Petitioner Sidhassan Yaqub‑Sharif Isac, a Somali national and noncitizen, pleaded guilty in 2020 to possession of a controlled substance, possession of paraphernalia, and driving under suspension and was sentenced to 360 days imprisonment.
After the plea, ICE detained Isac and initiated deportation proceedings; Isac did not appeal his conviction.
Isac filed a post‑conviction petition to withdraw his plea, initially alleging Fourth Amendment issues and later amended to assert ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him about immigration consequences.
At an evidentiary hearing defense counsel Leo O’Day testified he never discussed immigration consequences; Isac testified he would have proceeded to trial if he had known about deportation risks.
The district court found counsel deficient under Padilla principles for providing no immigration advice but concluded Isac failed to prove Strickland prejudice and denied relief; the court also allowed counsel to use notes to refresh recollection during testimony.
Isac appealed, arguing (1) the court erred in finding no prejudice from the lack of immigration advice and (2) the court improperly allowed counsel to refresh recollection in a manner that effectively admitted his notes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Isac proved Strickland prejudice from counsel's failure to advise on immigration consequences of the plea	Isac: He testified he would have gone to trial; his plea directly caused deportation proceedings, so competent advice would have changed his decision	State: Immigration consequences were uncertain; record shows a strong prosecution case, many prior convictions and repeated warnings; no contemporaneous evidence Isac would reject the plea	Court: Affirmed — counsel was deficient, but Isac failed to show a reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial (no prejudice)
Whether the district court abused discretion by allowing counsel to refresh recollection with notes	Isac: Court’s standing instruction enabled counsel to read notes into the record rather than testify from memory	State: Court properly followed N.D.R.Ev. 612 by allowing refreshment; Isac did not seek production of the notes; bench trial standard applies	Court: No abuse of discretion; allowing notes to refresh was proper and any error would not warrant reversal on the record

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise noncitizen clients about clear deportation consequences)
Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 356 (prejudice inquiry examines what the defendant would have done and looks for contemporaneous evidence)
Bahtiraj v. State, 2013 ND 240, 840 N.W.2d 605 (requires showing rejecting plea would be rational; examines likely trial outcome)
Isxaaq v. State, 2021 ND 148, 963 N.W.2d 260 (applies Padilla/Strickland framework to plea withdrawal based on immigration advice)
Kremer v. State, 2020 ND 132, 945 N.W.2d 279 (post‑conviction / Rule 11(d) plea withdrawal standard)
Morris v. State, 2019 ND 166, 930 N.W.2d 195 (burden of proof in post‑conviction proceedings; standard of review)
Curtiss v. State, 2016 ND 62, 877 N.W.2d 58 (clarifies clearly erroneous standard for findings)
Cmty. Homes of Bismarck, Inc. v. Main, 2011 ND 27, 794 N.W.2d 204 (procedure and limits for refreshing witness recollection)
Leno v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2015 ND 255, 870 N.W.2d 455 (discusses use of writings to refresh memory)