State Of Washington v. Jose Manuel Ramos-curiel, 49048-0

In 2008 Ramos-Curiel (non‑citizen) pleaded guilty to two charges including violation of a domestic violence no‑contact order; he was advised on his plea form that a guilty plea could lead to deportation.
At the 2008 plea colloquy the court asked if he understood that a felony plea could result in deportation; counsel and judge accepted the plea and sentenced him.
In 2016 Ramos‑Curiel moved under CrR 7.8(b) to withdraw the guilty plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for inadequate immigration advice and that the court’s plea colloquy was misleading about deportation consequences.
At the evidentiary hearing defense counsel testified he routinely reviewed the plea form; the court found counsel advised Ramos‑Curiel that the crimes were deportable and that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
The trial court denied withdrawal; Ramos‑Curiel appealed, arguing counsel failed to correctly advise that the domestic‑violence no‑contact conviction would certainly cause deportation and that the court’s “may be deported” wording misled him.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning immigration consequences for this offense were legally uncertain and the written advisement plus counsel’s review were constitutionally sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that pleading to violation of a domestic‑violence no‑contact order would necessarily result in deportation	Ramos‑Curiel: counsel failed to correctly advise that the plea made deportation certain	State: the immigration consequences were legally unclear; counsel’s general warning and plea form sufficed	Held: No ineffective assistance — law was not "truly clear," so general warning was adequate
Whether the court’s plea colloquy misled the defendant by saying he “may be deported” rather than would be deported, rendering plea involuntary	Ramos‑Curiel: the court’s phrasing minimized the certainty of deportation, making plea involuntary	State: phrasing was appropriate given uncertainty and likely referred to the drug charge; plea was knowing and voluntary	Held: No mislead — court’s language was appropriate and plea remained voluntary

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (defense counsel must advise about clear immigration consequences of a plea)
State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163 (Wash. 2011) (if immigration law is truly clear counsel must correctly advise; otherwise a general warning suffices)
Alanis‑Alvarado v. Holder, 558 F.3d 833 (9th Cir.) (applies categorical/modified categorical approach to protection‑order deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227)
Garcia‑Hernandez v. Boente, 847 F.3d 869 (7th Cir.) (views §1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) as dependent on what the court "determines" about conduct, not categorical analysis)