People v. Sifuentes
2017 COA 48
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Hector Toby Sifuentes, a lawful permanent resident who entered the U.S. as a child and has strong family/medical ties here, pleaded guilty to distribution of a Schedule III controlled substance (class 4 felony) after original class 3 charges were reduced.
- Plea counsel incorrectly advised Sifuentes that deportation was not automatic and that his ties/health might allow him to remain in the U.S.; in fact the conviction was an aggravated felony triggering mandatory deportation and mandatory detention under federal law.
- After plea, ICE issued a detainer, Community Corrections rejected him, and the trial court resentenced him to 42 months in prison.
- Sifuentes filed a Crim. P. 35(c) petition alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel for incorrect immigration advice and asked to withdraw his plea; the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found deficient performance but denied relief for lack of prejudice.
- The court of appeals examined the Strickland prejudice inquiry in the immigration-plea context, considered factors bearing on whether it would have been rational to reject the plea, and concluded Sifuentes established prejudice and must be allowed to withdraw his plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Sifuentes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel’s immigration advice was constitutionally deficient | Counsel warned risk but not certainty; defendant signed Rule 11 stating deportation possible; alleged advice did not prejudice plea | Counsel gave specific, erroneous assurance that deportation was not automatic, contrary to immigration law | Court: Counsel’s advice was deficient under Padilla; Strickland performance prong satisfied |
| Whether defendant suffered Strickland prejudice from counsel’s erroneous advice | Strong prosecution case (audio/video), modest sentencing benefit from plea; rejecting plea would be irrational so no prejudice | But deportation was essentially certain with conviction; preserving U.S. residence (and medical/family ties) made going to trial rational despite risks | Court: Considering all factors, a reasonable probability exists that Sifuentes would have rejected the plea; prejudice satisfied |
| Whether a signed Rule 11 advisement forecloses relief despite counsel’s error | People: written advisement and providency colloquy put defendant on notice; he failed to ask questions, so no prejudice | Defendant: specific erroneous advice by counsel can still cause prejudice even when a general written advisement mentions deportation | Court: A general written advisement does not automatically negate prejudice where counsel gave specific, erroneous assurances; written Rule 11 did not preclude relief |
| Remedy if Strickland shown | People: deny withdrawal because plea process outcome would be same | Sifuentes: allow withdrawal of plea, vacate conviction and reinstate original charges | Court: Reverse denial, grant petition, vacate conviction, permit plea withdrawal, reinstate original charges |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen whether plea carries risk of deportation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (right to counsel includes effective assistance during pleas)
- Carmichael v. People, 206 P.3d 800 (Colo. 2009) (Strickland standards applied to plea-based ineffective-assistance claims; written advisements do not automatically foreclose prejudice)
- People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523 (Colo. 1987) (where erroneous immigration advice induced a plea, defendant generally may withdraw)
- DiGuglielmo v. People, 33 P.3d 1248 (Colo. App. 2001) (written Rule 11 advisement may be relevant to prejudice analysis when court specifically advised correctly and defendant asked no questions)
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (in immigration cases, ties to the U.S. weigh heavily in assessing whether rejecting a plea would be rational)
- DeBartolo v. United States, 790 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2015) (defendant’s ties and the severity of immigration consequences are central to prejudice analysis)