Personal Restraint Petition Of Santos W. Orantes
71082-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Feb 6, 2017Background
- Petitioner Santos Orantes, a Salvadoran national with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), pleaded guilty in 2006 to unlawfully issuing a bank check and received a deferred 364-day sentence; these convictions made him ineligible for TPS renewal and subject to deportation.
- Counsel allegedly told Orantes the plea would not affect his immigration status if his confinement stayed below 365 days; Orantes later learned TPS renewal was denied and he entered deportation proceedings.
- Orantes filed a 2011 collateral challenge asserting involuntary plea/due process based on Padilla (U.S. Supreme Court decision), but expressly did not claim ineffective assistance of counsel; that petition was dismissed and affirmed.
- In 2013 Orantes filed a second collateral petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing/misadvising about immigration consequences; the trial court treated it as time-barred and an abuse of the writ.
- The Court of Appeals examined whether Padilla constituted a "significant change in the law" under RCW 10.73.100(6) and whether later Washington decisions finding Padilla retroactive created an intervening development to excuse a second petition.
Issues
| Issue | Orantes' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Orantes' ineffective-assistance claim is time-barred under the one-year PRP statute | Padilla is a significant, material change in law that applies retroactively, so RCW 10.73.100(6) saves his late claim | Padilla did not create a new, material rule for claims like Orantes'; pre-Padilla WA law already permitted similar claims | Held: Padilla is a significant, material change that applies retroactively; statute-of-limitations exception applies and petition is timely |
| Whether Orantes' second PRP is an abuse of the writ | The claim rests on intervening case law (Padilla retroactivity decisions), so it was not "available" earlier | Second petition is abusive because Padilla was decided before Orantes' first petition | Held: Not an abuse — this court's/other Washington decisions recognizing Padilla's retroactivity (post-first petition) constitute intervening change permitting the second petition |
| Whether pre-Padilla Washington case law already allowed misadvice-based ineffective assistance claims | Orantes: pre-Padilla authority would likely have rejected such claims; Padilla changed that rule | State: Washington courts already distinguished and allowed misadvice claims (not just non-advice) pre-Padilla | Held: Pre-Padilla WA law likely would have rejected Orantes' claim; Padilla altered the collateral/direct-consequence analysis and is material |
| Remedy required at this stage | Orantes asks to withdraw plea or receive hearing on ineffective assistance claim | State resists further proceedings as untimely/abusive | Held: Remanded for a reference hearing on the merits of the ineffective-assistance claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise about immigration consequences; Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance applies to deportation consequences)
- State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163 (2011) (addressed plea advice and immigration consequences; Padilla superseded prior analysis)
- Yung-Cheng Tsai (In re Personal Restraint of Tsai), 183 Wn.2d 91 (2015) (WA Supreme Court held Padilla applies retroactively on collateral review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Turay, 153 Wn.2d 44 (2004) (abuse-of-the-writ standard; intervening changes in law excuse subsequent petitions)
- Yim v. State (In re Pers. Restraint of Yim), 139 Wn.2d 581 (1999) (prior WA precedent treating deportation as collateral consequence; distinguished by Padilla)