People v. Morones-Quinonez
2015 COA 161
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Luz del Carmen Morones-Quinonez, a noncitizen with removal proceedings pending, was charged after police found a false ID; she retained counsel who handled both her criminal and immigration matters.
- Counsel advised Morones to plead guilty to criminal impersonation, representing it was a "minor felony" that would not harm her immigration case; Morones pleaded guilty relying on that advice.
- An immigration judge later ordered Morones removed; her request for cancellation of removal was denied based on the conviction.
- Morones filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for affirmative misadvice about immigration consequences and alleging she would have gone to trial if properly advised.
- The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the written guilty-plea advisement and the court's oral Rule 11 advisement cured any counsel error as a matter of law.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding Morones alleged facts sufficient to require resolution of both deficient-performance and prejudice at a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's immigration advice was constitutionally deficient | People: counsel specialized in immigration, so advice was reasonable or cured by court advisement | Morones: counsel affirmatively misrepresented that plea would not affect removal; failure to warn of risk was deficient | Court: Morones pleaded sufficient facts of deficient performance; factual dispute requires a hearing |
| Whether Morones demonstrated prejudice under Strickland/Lockhart (would have gone to trial) | People: court and written advisements put Morones on notice; thus no prejudice as a matter of law | Morones: she would have rejected plea and proceeded to trial to preserve ability to stay in U.S.; longstanding residence and citizen-family ties made that rational | Court: cannot decide prejudice as matter of law here; her allegations make a rationality showing and require a hearing |
| Whether the court's oral/written advisements automatically cure counsel's alleged affirmative misrepresentation | People: general advisement that plea "may" cause deportation cures any counsel error | Morones: a court's generic warning does not necessarily negate a specific promise by counsel | Court: a general Rule 11 advisement does not, as a matter of law, override specific attorney misrepresentations; remand for evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise re: immigration consequences)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard when plea entered)
- People v. Carmichael, 206 P.3d 800 (advice by counsel can produce prejudice despite court advisement)
- People v. Kazadi, 284 P.3d 70 (applying Strickland in plea context)
- People v. Simpson, 69 P.3d 79 (guilty-plea voluntariness requires trial-court factfinding when contested)
- Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (preserving ability to remain may outweigh sentencing concerns)
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (removal risk can motivate decision to go to trial)