State v. Awad
2020 ND 66
| N.D. | 2020Background
- Defendant Mohamed Awad pleaded guilty to knowingly voting when not qualified and later moved to withdraw his guilty plea.
- At arraignment the court advised Awad of immigration consequences per N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(J). The same advisory was not re‑read at the change‑of‑plea hearing; the court asked if he had questions and he said no.
- Awad argued the plea should be withdrawn because (1) the court failed to confirm immigration consequences at the plea and (2) his counsel gave ineffective immigration advice (Padilla claim).
- At the withdrawal hearing Awad did not testify and presented no evidence; his attorney (who had represented him at plea) stated counsel had not given proper immigration advice. The attorney’s statement was not treated as evidence.
- The district court denied the motion; the Supreme Court reviewed whether that denial was an abuse of discretion and whether ineffective assistance was shown on the direct appeal record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Awad) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 by not re‑advising Awad of immigration consequences at the change‑of‑plea hearing | Arraignment advisory satisfied Rule 11; re‑advisal not required if record shows prior warning and defendant’s recall | Court should have confirmed immigration consequences directly before accepting plea | No error — prior arraignment advisory plus defendant’s acknowledgment sufficed |
| Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance under Padilla/Strickland by failing to advise on immigration consequences | No ineffective assistance shown on the record; claim requires developed factual record | Counsel failed to advise; plea would have been rejected if properly advised | No ineffective assistance shown on direct appeal; claim dismissed without prejudice to postconviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. State, 930 N.W.2d 195 (N.D. 2019) (manifest injustice standard for plea withdrawal)
- State v. Bates, 726 N.W.2d 595 (N.D. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Pixler, 783 N.W.2d 9 (N.D. 2010) (abuse of discretion defined)
- State v. Yost, 914 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 2018) (prior advisories can satisfy Rule 11 if whole record shows knowledge)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise on clear immigration consequences or face ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Morales v. State, 927 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 2019) (rationality requirement for proving one would have gone to trial)
- State v. Atkins, 873 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2016) (direct appeal often inadequate to resolve ineffective assistance claims)