State Of Washington v. Jorge Madrigal, 74309-1

In 1985 Jorge Madrigal, an undocumented noncitizen, pleaded guilty to possession of heroin and was sentenced to 35 days.
In 2013 DHS initiated removal proceedings against Madrigal; the notice listed his presence without admission/parole and did not reference the 1985 conviction.
In 2015 Madrigal moved to vacate his 1985 judgment under CrR 7.8, claiming his plea was not voluntary because counsel failed to advise him of immigration consequences; he said he would not have pled guilty had he known.
Madrigal’s 1985 plea form and plea agreement explicitly referenced deportation; the State’s sentencing recommendation included deportation.
Plea counsel (Glass) testified he typically reviewed the plea and State recommendations with clients, used the boilerplate immigration warning on the plea form, but did not research immigration law or refer clients to immigration counsel.
The trial court denied the motion; Madrigal appealed, arguing the claim was timely under RCW 10.73.100(6) (Padilla-related change) and that counsel was ineffective under Padilla.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Madrigal's CrR 7.8 collateral attack is time barred	Padilla created a significant change in law allowing timely collateral attack	The one-year collateral-attack bar applies; Padilla is not a qualifying change	Court: Padilla is a significant change; claim not time barred
Whether counsel performed deficiently by failing to advise about immigration consequences	Counsel failed to advise of deportation risk; plea involuntary	Counsel discussed plea and State's recommendations (which included deportation); boilerplate warning and discussion sufficed	Court: No deficient performance; counsel competent under Padilla
Whether Madrigal was prejudiced by counsel's conduct	He would not have pled guilty and would be eligible for cancellation of removal absent conviction	State points to explicit references to deportation and counsel's practice of reviewing recommendations	Court: No prejudice shown given explicit State recommendation and counsel's review practice
Whether Padilla requires research/referral when deportation is explicitly stated	Padilla requires accurate advice when consequences are clear	Where deportation was explicitly sought, no further research was necessary	Court: When deportation is explicit and conveyed, counsel fulfilled Padilla duties

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (attorney must advise about clear immigration consequences of a plea)
State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163 (Wash. 2011) (failure to correctly inform about deportation can be deficient assistance)
State v. Martinez, 161 Wn. App. 436 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (counsel’s lack of immigration warnings can be deficient)
In re Pers. Restraint of Yunq-Cheng Tsai, 183 Wn.2d 91 (Wash. 2015) (Padilla is a significant change in state law for RCW 10.73.100(6) purposes)
In re the Pers. Restraint of Orantes, 197 Wn. App. 737 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017) (applied Padilla-related exception to time bar when claim was material to conviction)