Sanmartin Prado v. State
123 A.3d 652
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Juan Carlos Sanmartin Prado, an Ecuadorian LPR, was convicted (via an agreed statement of facts) of second-degree child abuse on Jan 6, 2011 and sentenced to 5 years with all but 2 suspended and two years probation. He did not appeal.
- Six months after completing probation, ICE arrested him for deportation; the conviction is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.
- Sanmartin Prado filed a writ of error coram nobis alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to properly advise him of the deportation consequences of the conviction.
- At the coram nobis hearing, trial counsel testified that he discussed immigration consequences but used qualifiers (e.g., "possible" or "if the federal government chooses") rather than unequivocally telling Sanmartin Prado he was deportable.
- The circuit court denied the petition, reasoning the claim was waived for failure to appeal; the Court of Special Appeals reversed that procedural ruling and remanded to determine the merits of ineffective assistance under Strickland/Padilla.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to appeal waives coram nobis | Sanmartin Prado: CP § 8-401 prevents deeming failure to appeal a waiver of coram nobis | State: petitioner should have raised claim on appeal or PCR; waiver applies | Court: Waiver is not proper — CP § 8-401 prevents treating failure to appeal as waiver; reversal on procedural grounds |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by inadequately advising re: deportation | Sanmartin Prado: counsel’s qualified statements ("possible," "if the government chooses") fell below Padilla and professional norms | State: counsel did discuss immigration consequences; petitioner acknowledged the discussion; no deficient performance | Court: Counsel’s advice was deficient under Padilla/Strickland (first prong proven); remand to decide prejudice (Strickland second prong) |
Key Cases Cited
- Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52 (2000) (expands coram nobis as remedy for non-incarcerated persons facing significant collateral consequences)
- Arrington v. State, 411 Md. 524 (2009) (appellate review: factual findings of post-conviction court not disturbed unless clearly erroneous)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen clients of deportation risks; deficient advice satisfies Strickland prejudice inquiry threshold)
- Denisyuk v. State, 422 Md. 462 (2011) (applies Padilla in Maryland; counsel’s failure to advise of deportation consequences can be deficient)
- United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2012) (granted coram nobis where counsel misadvised defendant about deportation)
- Miller v. State, 435 Md. 174 (2013) (discusses coram nobis claims tied to immigration advice; relied on by circuit court below)