People v. Corrales-Castro, 2017 CO 60

In May 2009 Corrales-Castro pled guilty to criminal impersonation and received a one-year deferred judgment.
After complying with conditions, the trial court withdrew his guilty plea and dismissed the charge with prejudice in May 2010 under § 18-1.3-102(2), C.R.S.
In May 2013 Corrales-Castro moved under Colo. Crim. P. 32(d) to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel (including Padilla-based immigration advice claims).
The district court denied the motion for lack of authority; the court of appeals reversed, holding Rule 32(d) could be used to attack an already-withdrawn plea because of lingering federal immigration consequences.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and considered whether Rule 32(d) authorizes withdrawal of a plea that already was withdrawn and the charge dismissed under § 18-1.3-102(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Corrales-Castro)	Held
Whether Crim. P. 32(d) permits withdrawal of a plea after the plea already was withdrawn and the charge dismissed under § 18-1.3-102(2)	Rule 32(d) does not authorize reopening an already-withdrawn plea; no authority in the Rule to withdraw a nonexistent plea	Rule 32(d) should allow a collateral challenge because the withdrawn plea can still have immigration consequences and Padilla requires a remedy for ineffective assistance	Reversed court of appeals; Rule 32(d) presupposes an existing plea to withdraw and does not authorize withdrawal of an already-withdrawn plea

Kazadi v. People, 291 P.3d 16 (Colo. 2012) (held Rule 32(d) is the proper vehicle to challenge a plea to a deferred judgment when the plea has not been withdrawn)
Sandoval-Candelaria v. People, 321 P.3d 487 (Colo. 2014) (standard of review for appellate interpretation of criminal rules; cited for de novo review)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (defense counsel must advise noncitizen defendants about immigration consequences of guilty pleas)