Ramirez v. State, 2014 NMSC 023

Background

In January 1997 Martin Ramirez (alias Richard G. Sanchez, Jr.) pleaded guilty in metropolitan court to three misdemeanors on the advice of his public defender; he was told his sentence would be time served.
Ramirez asserts his attorney never advised him of immigration consequences; years later USCIS denied his waiver, concluding his 1997 pleas made him inadmissible.
Form 9-406 (amended effective Sept. 1, 1990) required the judge to advise a defendant that conviction may affect immigration status and required defense counsel to certify having explained the affidavit in detail.
Ramirez petitioned for coram nobis in district court claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under State v. Paredez (2004); the district court denied relief as Paredez was held not to apply retroactively.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Paredez (and Padilla) applied retroactively in New Mexico; the State sought certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding Paredez is not a “new rule” in New Mexico because Form 9-406 (1990) already imposed the obligation to advise about immigration consequences; remanded for Ramirez to pursue withdrawal of his pleas if prejudiced by counsel’s deficient advice.

Issues

Issue	Ramirez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Paredez applies retroactively to convictions finalized before Paredez	Paredez implements obligations that existed since Form 9-406 (1990); thus it is not a new rule and applies retroactively to 1990 and later convictions	Chaidez suggests Padilla (federal analog) is a new rule; thus Paredez should not apply retroactively	Paredez applies retroactively to 1990 in New Mexico because Form 9-406 (1990) already required advising about immigration consequences
Whether counsel’s failure to advise about immigration consequences can constitute ineffective assistance justifying plea withdrawal	Counsel failed to advise; Ramirez would not have pled guilty if informed, satisfying prejudice prong	Even if counsel erred, the State argued retroactivity (and that plea colloquy/form compliance may foreclose relief)	Failure to advise can be deficient performance; prejudice is shown by credible allegation that Ramirez would not have pled, so he may seek withdrawal of pleas
Whether a court’s adherence to plea-form/colloquy alone cures ineffective assistance of counsel	Ramirez: proper court-colloquy does not cure deficient attorney advice; ineffective assistance can exist despite form/colloquy	State: compliance with plea procedures may negate claim	Court held recorded or procedural compliance does not automatically cure counsel’s deficient advice (citing State v. Hunter)
Standard for determining whether a rule is "new" under Teague/Kersey	Paredez merely applied existing obligations; not new	Paredez announces a new obligation akin to Padilla (per Chaidez)	Under New Mexico precedent (Kersey) Paredez is not new because the 1990 rule/form already dictated the result

Key Cases Cited

State v. Paredez, 136 N.M. 533, 101 P.3d 799 (N.M. 2004) (criminal defense counsel must advise noncitizen clients of specific immigration consequences of guilty pleas)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise about deportation risk from guilty plea)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2013) (Padilla announced a new rule and therefore does not apply retroactively in federal habeas review)
Kersey v. Hatch, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683 (N.M. 2010) (New Mexico applies Teague analysis to determine retroactivity of new criminal procedure rules)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2001) (recognizes ABA standard that counsel should advise defendants of deportation consequences)
State v. Hunter, 140 N.M. 406, 143 P.3d 168 (N.M. 2006) (proper plea hearing does not cure ineffective assistance of counsel)