State of Washington v. Alvaro Moises Ramos, 33523-2

Ramos, a long‑time U.S. resident, was charged in Grant County (2006) with attempting to elude a police vehicle and driving with license suspended; he pled guilty to attempting to elude on May 26, 2009 and the other count was dismissed.
Ramos later alleged his trial counsel never advised him of immigration consequences of the plea; counsel submitted declarations denying specific immigration advice but saying general plea warnings were given.
Ramos received a light sentence (30 days, converted largely to community service); after later arrest on a separate warrant, ICE issued a detainer and Ramos was placed in removal proceedings and ordered removed.
Immigration counsel advised Ramos the only way to avoid deportation might be to vacate the guilty plea; Ramos moved to vacate his plea in state court and sought collateral relief; the trial court transferred his CrR 7.8 motion to the Court of Appeals as a personal restraint petition.
The State conceded ineffective assistance of counsel but raised procedural defenses; the Court of Appeals proceeded on Ramos’s direct appeal and considered affidavits submitted in the collateral proceeding.

Issue	Ramos' Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Did the trial court err by denying motion to vacate and transferring to Court of Appeals?	Trial court erred; motion should be considered.	Petition premature, untimely, withdrawn, successive — procedural defects.	Court did not decide; resolved case on direct appeal instead.
2. May the court address validity of plea though no formal assignment of error?	Yes — brief challenges plea for ineffective assistance.	Procedural rule (RAP 10.3) would bar review.	Court exercised liberal construction of rules and addressed the plea on the merits.
3. May appellate court consider new evidence filed in collateral (PRP) proceeding on direct appeal?	Yes — affidavits should be considered to decide ineffective assistance.	Direct appeals normally exclude new evidence.	Court allowed consideration of the PRP affidavits for this consolidated review.
4. Was counsel ineffective for failing to advise about immigration consequences of the guilty plea?	Counsel failed to warn; had Ramos known he would be deportable he would not have pled.	(Conceded ineffective assistance; raised timing/other defenses elsewhere.)	Court held counsel ineffective under Strickland/Padilla and vacated the guilty plea.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise about clear deportation consequences of pleas)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163 (2011) (limits on new evidence in direct appeals; discussed in consolidation context)
In re Pers. Restraint of Riley, 122 Wn.2d 772 (1993) (prejudice standard for showing a plea would not have been entered but for counsel's errors)
Wei Cong Mei v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2004) (precedent treating evading police as conduct that can constitute moral turpitude)