State of Iowa v. Victor Hernandez-Galarza
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 61
| Iowa | 2015Background
- Victor Hernandez-Galarza pleaded guilty (written plea warning about immigration consequences) to fraudulent practice (4th degree) and received a deferred judgment with one year probation; probation was discharged and records expunged in Feb 2012.
- In March 2013 he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (alternatively coram nobis) alleging ineffective assistance under Padilla for counsel’s failure to advise about deportation and loss of eligibility for cancellation of removal.
- District court summarily denied the habeas petition; Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed for pleading and custody defects; Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
- Central factual gaps: no documentary proof in the record of an ICE detainer, removal proceedings, or current federal custody; petitioner filed after state probation and deferred-judgment period had ended.
- Legal question: whether Iowa Code chapter 663 (habeas) can be used to collaterally attack a deferred judgment on Padilla-type ineffective-assistance grounds when the state sentence has expired and alleged consequences are immigration-based.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas (Iowa Code ch. 663) is a cognizable vehicle to attack a deferred judgment based on Padilla ineffective assistance | Hernandez-Galarza: habeas is available because deferred judgment is not a final conviction under postconviction statutes and collateral immigration consequences justify relief | State: habeas is unavailable because petitioner was not in custody by the State when petition filed; postconviction statutes foreclose relief for convictions/sentences but deferred judgment differs; here no ongoing state restraint | Court: habeas not available here — petitioner was not restrained by Iowa when petition filed and failed pleading/custody requirements; collateral immigration consequences alone insufficient |
| Whether petitioner met pleading and custody requirements of Iowa Code §663.1 and §663.8–663.15 | Hernandez-Galarza: alleged ICE detainer and removal proceedings tied to state plea; thus restraint exists | State: petition failed to identify who restrains him, where, or attach legal process; no evidence state has custody or constructive custody; ICE detainer is only a request and not state custody | Court: petition dismissed — failed statutory pleading requirements and could not direct writ to party responsible for detention because State of Iowa had no custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (defense counsel must advise about clear risk of deportation)
- Daughenbaugh v. State, 805 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa) (deferred judgment not a conviction for postconviction relief statute; discussed scope of habeas)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (a sentence must be in effect at filing for federal habeas custody requirement)
- Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (collateral consequences can prevent mootness if petition filed while in custody)
- Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.) (immigration consequences collateral and do not render petitioner in state custody after sentence expires)
- People v. Villa, 202 P.3d 427 (Cal. 2009) (state habeas requires custody; expired sentence plus federal immigration action does not create state custody)
- People v. Carrera, 940 N.E.2d 1111 (Ill. 2010) (no standing to collaterally attack after sentence expired; deportation traceable to federal, not state, action)