Luis Gerardo Garcia Urbano v. State of Minnesota
A16-181
| Minn. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2016Background
- Luis Garcia Urbano, a lawful permanent resident from Mexico, pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct (statutory) and violation of a harassment restraining order in Dec. 2014, and later pleaded guilty to fleeing a peace officer and fourth-degree DWI in Apr. 2015.
- The plea colloquies and plea petitions included advisories that guilty pleas could have immigration consequences; the court twice warned Urbano about possible deportation and recessed to allow him time to consider immigration issues before taking his pleas.
- After sentencing, ICE detained Urbano and initiated removal proceedings; Urbano then moved to vacate convictions or withdraw guilty pleas arguing ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla because counsel failed to advise him correctly about deportation consequences.
- At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Urbano testified he did not recall receiving immigration advice; trial counsel testified he warned deportation was possible or likely and recommended immigration counsel for specialized advice.
- The district court found counsel’s testimony credible, concluded the immigration consequences were not “truly clear,” and denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Urbano's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective under Padilla for failing to advise that plea would result in deportation | Counsel should have informed him deportation was certain because convictions matched aggravated felonies/crimes of violence | Counsel warned deportation was possible/likely and where law is unclear Padilla only requires warning of possible immigration risk | Counsel not ineffective; law not "truly clear," so minimal Padilla advice sufficed |
| Whether third-degree CSC plea was a statutory match to INA aggravated felony (sexual abuse of a minor) | § 609.344, subd. 1(b) is a categorical match making deportation certain | INA does not define "sexual abuse of a minor" and no controlling authority establishes a categorical match | No categorical match shown; counsel’s limited warning was reasonable |
| Whether fleeing a peace officer plea was an aggravated felony/crime of violence under INA | Simple statutory reading shows vehicle flight is a crime of violence requiring deportation | Fleeing is not listed as a crime of violence under INA; no binding authority showed it was; law was not succinct | Law not clearly indicating aggravated-felony status; counsel’s advice sufficient |
| Whether Urbano’s pleas were voluntary, intelligent, and accurate (manifest injustice) | Pleas involuntary due to constitutionally deficient immigration advice | Pleas were knowingly entered after court and counsel warnings; defendant had opportunity to consult; factual bases supported pleas | Pleas were valid; no manifest injustice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise noncitizen clients about deportation risk; degree of specificity depends on clarity of immigration consequences)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Sanchez v. State, 868 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 2015) (Padilla application where immigration consequences were not "truly clear," requiring only a warning of possible risk)
- Vang v. State, 847 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 2014) (discussing Strickland standard in Minnesota context)
- Campos v. State, 816 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. 2012) (standard of review for denial of plea-withdrawal under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05)