State of Washington v. Maria I. Manzo
33432-5
Wash. Ct. App.Mar 9, 2017Background
- Maria Manzo, an undocumented immigrant who arrived in the U.S. in 1996, pled guilty in 2004 to conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to deliver; the State recommended time served and restitution.
- Defense counsel Adolfo Banda expressly told the trial court at sentencing that Manzo had an immigration hold, "she'll be deported," and that she would not be able to return or acquire legal status; a Spanish interpreter translated counsel’s remarks to Manzo.
- Manzo later filed a motion to withdraw her plea (transferred as a personal restraint petition), claiming counsel failed to advise her of the full immigration consequences and that she would have gone to trial if properly informed.
- Declarations: Manzo and an immigration attorney said she did not understand plea deportation consequences; Banda stated he warned her generally and raised deportation to explain sentencing limitations.
- The trial court found Banda did not affirmatively misadvise Manzo; the Court of Appeals consolidated Manzo’s direct appeal and PRP and reviewed the Padilla-based ineffective assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Manzo's Argument | State/Banda's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel provided constitutionally adequate advice about immigration consequences of the plea under Padilla | Banda failed to inform or affirmatively misadvised Manzo about the deportation and ineligibility for relief, so plea was involuntary | Banda expressly warned at the plea hearing that Manzo faced deportation and could not return or obtain legal status; interpreter conveyed the warning | Counsel adequately warned Manzo; no ineffective assistance under Padilla; plea affirmed |
| Whether Manzo suffered prejudice from any deficient advice (Strickland prong) | Had she known deportation was effectively certain and precluded relief, she would not have pleaded guilty | No shown deficiency; counsel’s statements made consequences known, so no prejudice proven | No prejudice established; Strickland prongs not met |
| Whether retroactive application of Padilla warrants relief for a 2004 plea | Padilla’s rule applies retroactively on collateral review and supports relief if counsel deficient | Even applying Padilla retroactively, the record shows counsel warned of deportation so Padilla does not help Manzo | Padilla applied, but facts do not satisfy Padilla-based ineffective assistance claim |
| Whether a manifest injustice occurred permitting plea withdrawal | Manzo argues manifest injustice due to ineffective assistance regarding immigration consequences | State argues no manifest injustice because counsel’s conduct was reasonable and warnings given | No manifest injustice shown; plea withdrawal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise about deportation risk of plea)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (plea voluntariness and counsel advice standard)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (preserving eligibility for discretionary relief is central to plea decisions)
- State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163 (Washington law on counsel advice and collateral consequences)
- In re Personal Restraint of Tsai, 183 Wn.2d 91 (Padilla applies retroactively in WA collateral review)
- In re Personal Restraint of Ramos, 181 Wn. App. 743 (reviewing affidavits in PRP and applying Padilla analysis)
- State v. Littlefair, 112 Wn. App. 749 (plea vacated where immigration warnings were stricken and defendant unaware)