State of Washington v. Tara J. Ammons
34533-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Tara Ammons, adopted from Mexico as an infant and raised believing she was a U.S. citizen, entered a drug court agreement in 2008 that waived many trial rights and provided for adjudication on police reports if she violated the program.
- By at least March 2008 she learned she was not a U.S. citizen; she remained in drug court but was terminated in January 2009 after a later misdemeanor charge and was convicted following a stipulated facts trial in 2009.
- Ammons was placed in removal proceedings in 2011 (terminated) and again in 2015; competency issues and appointed counsel arose in immigration proceedings in 2015.
- In March 2016 Ammons filed a CrR 7.8(b) motion to vacate the drug court agreement, convictions, and sentence, arguing she lacked awareness of immigration consequences, citing Padilla, RCW 10.73.100(6)/Tsai, and equitable tolling.
- The trial court granted vacatur, finding mutual mistake and excusing the one-year filing deadline by equitable tolling based on competency and lack of counsel; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Ammons' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ammons' post-conviction motion was timely or subject to equitable tolling | She argued equitable tolling applies due to competency issues, lack of counsel, and late discovery of immigration consequences | The State argued Ammons had the necessary information before conviction, no record of incompetence during drug court, and failed to act diligently | Motion untimely; equitable tolling not shown — Ammons failed to demonstrate required diligence or factual basis for incompetence |
| Whether RCW 10.73.100(6)/Padilla/Tsai create a retroactive basis to excuse the one-year bar | Padilla (and Tsai) should allow relief because counsel failed to secure immigration-protective outcomes; Tsai made Padilla’s rule applicable in WA | The State argued Padilla/Tsai concern guilty-plea advice; Chaidez bars retroactive application beyond that context and no WA statute required counsel to pursue immigration-favorable outcomes here | Padilla/Tsai do not apply retroactively to Ammons’ non-plea stipulated facts trial; Chaidez controls, so RCW 10.73.100(6) exception doesn't excuse delay |
| Whether mutual mistake about citizenship invalidates the stipulated-facts conviction | Ammons argued the waiver and stipulated-facts trial were predicated on a mutual mistake regarding citizenship and immigration consequences | The State disputed that mistake excused the untimeliness and noted Ammons and counsel knew status before the stipulated-facts trial | Court found no timely basis to grant relief; mutual-mistake theory not enough to overcome statutory time bar without equitable tolling |
| Whether incompetence (later found in immigration proceedings) excuses delay | Ammons contended later incompetence and lack of counsel prevented earlier filing | The State pointed to trial-court findings of competence during drug court and no record showing incompetence when relief could have been sought | Later incompetence did not justify tolling; record lacks proof she was incapable of earlier pursuing relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (failure to advise noncitizen defendant of deportation risks can constitute ineffective assistance in guilty-plea context)
- In re Personal Restraint of Yung-Cheng Tsai, 183 Wn.2d 91 (Wash. 2015) (applied Padilla retroactively in Washington for guilty-plea cases under RCW 10.73.100(6))
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (Padilla announced a new rule of federal law and is not retroactive to final convictions under federal standards)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Bonds, 165 Wn.2d 135 (Wash. 2008) (burden and standards for establishing equitable tolling and post-conviction relief timing)