Luis Gerardo Ortega-Araiza
2014 WY 99
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- Ortega-Araiza pled guilty to strangulation of a household member; learned plea could trigger deportation and moved to withdraw based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
- District court found counsel deficient for not advising on immigration consequences but denied withdrawal based on lack of prejudice; sentenced 2–4 years.
- Padilla v. Kentucky requires counsel to advise alien defendants about immigration consequences; Valle v. State had held immigration consequences are collateral and need not be discussed, a position later overruled by Padilla.
- Court held there was a reasonable probability Ortega-Araiza would have rejected the plea if advised of deportation risk, given nearly certain deportation upon conviction and his ties to the U.S.
- Warning given in plea colloquy was generic and insufficient to cure prejudice; plea agreement warning was similarly insufficient.
- Court remanded to grant the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, concluding the district court abused its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Ortega-Araiza prejudiced by counsel’s performance? | Ortega-Araiza, via Padilla, shows prejudice. | Ortega-Araiza failed to prove prejudice. | Yes, prejudice established. |
| Did the district court’s plea-colloquy warning cure the prejudice? | Padilla requires a clear warning; generic warning insufficient. | Court warning could cure prejudice. | No, colloquy warning insufficient. |
| Did the plea agreement warning cure the prejudice? | General caution in the agreement cannot cure clear prejudice. | Agreement warning should suffice. | No, plea agreement warning insufficient. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying withdrawal? | Counsel’s deficient performance constituted fair and just reason to withdraw. | No fair and just reason shown. | Yes, district court abused discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (must inform noncitizen defendants of deportation risk; near certainty of deportation when clear)
- Valle v. State, 132 P.3d 181 (Wy. 2006) (immigration consequences treated as collateral; overruled by Padilla for deportation context)
- Palmer v. State, 174 P.3d 1298 (Wyo. 2008) (prejudice standard for withdrawing a guilty plea before sentencing)
- Turner v. State, 327 P.3d 100 (Wy. 2014) (prejudice framework for plea withdrawal post-Padilla)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland prejudice standard in guilty-plea context)
- Frame v. State, 29 P.3d 86 (Wy. 2001) (seven-factor test for fair and just reason to withdraw plea before sentencing)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (counsel’s duty; separation of roles in court)
- Favela v. Favela, 311 P.3d 1213 (Wy. Ct. App. 2011) (Padilla effects on counsel duties; cannot rely on boilerplate warnings)
- Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2012) (specificity of immigration warning matters in cure theory)
- Bonilla v. Wilson, 637 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2011) (near-certain deportation requires clear warning)