State of Washington v. Miguel Barajas-Verduzco, 33431-7

Background

In 2003 Miguel Barajas-Verduzco (an undocumented noncitizen) pleaded guilty to multiple drug and related charges; his plea form and the prosecutor warned that conviction could lead to deportation.
His trial counsel was Theodore Mahr; Barajas-Verduzco later swore that Mahr told him he would be deported but advised him to hire a coyote and reenter the U.S., and promised post‑return immigration help for a fee.
After serving his sentence, Barajas-Verduzco was deported, allegedly reentered illegally, and later was detained by ICE; he then filed a motion (treated as a personal restraint petition) to vacate his 2003 plea claiming ineffective assistance under Padilla v. Kentucky.
The State conceded Mahr’s performance might have been deficient but argued lack of prejudice; the superior court transferred the motion to the Court of Appeals as a PRP and the appeal was consolidated with the PRP.
The Court of Appeals assumed, for argument, that Mahr gave the alleged post‑plea advice but denied relief, invoking the equitable doctrine of unclean hands because the advice encouraged illegal reentry (a felony under federal law) and Barajas‑Verduzco followed it.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Barajas‑Verduzco)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether plea should be vacated for ineffective assistance under Padilla because counsel misadvised about immigration consequences	Mahr misadvised or failed to fully inform about deportation and permanent exclusion, so plea was uninformed and involuntary	State: Mahr warned of deportation; any deficiency did not cause prejudice or was not the decisive factor	Denied—claim rejected on equitable grounds (unclean hands); no relief granted
Whether counsel’s alleged promise to help obtain residency (post‑reentry) constitutes affirmative misadvice supporting relief	Barajas‑Verduzco says Mahr implied he could secure legal status after illegal reentry, inducing the plea	State disputes prejudice and points to plea colloquy and written warnings about immigration consequences	Court assumed misadvice for argument but refused to remand because petitioner participated in illegal conduct recommended by counsel
Whether petitioner’s illegal reentry (following counsel’s advice) bars him from seeking collateral relief	Barajas‑Verduzco seeks to vacate plea despite having committed new federal offenses by reentering	State argues petitioner cannot profit from subsequent illegal acts that he undertook at counsel’s suggestion	Held: Unclean hands doctrine applies; petitioner barred from relief because he seeks to benefit from his own wrongdoing
Procedural sufficiency of petitioner’s claim given plea colloquy/written plea form statements	Barajas‑Verduzco asserts later affidavits establish misadvice and prejudice	State emphasizes plea form, court admonitions, and that petitioner denied undisclosed promises at plea hearing	Court noted contradictions but relied primarily on equitable bar; concurrence emphasized plea colloquy estops petitioner as well

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (attorney must advise noncitizen client about deportation risk of plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (ineffective assistance standard applies to guilty‑plea context)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to plea process)
State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163 (Washington law on deportation as consequence and counsel advice pre‑Padilla)
In re Personal Restraint of Ramos, 181 Wn. App. 743 (application of Padilla analysis in Washington PRP context)
In re Personal Restraint of Young‑Cheng Tsai, 183 Wn.2d 91 (Padilla retroactivity in Washington collateral review)
State v. Peoples, 446 N.J. Super. 245 (applying unclean‑hands principle to deny ineffective‑assistance relief where counsel advised illegal conduct)
Arnett v. State, 938 P.2d 1079 (attorney advice to commit crime bars claiming prejudice from counsel’s incompetence)