State v. Cervantes, 282 P.3d 98

Gomez Cervantes appealed the trial court's denial of his 2010 motion to vacate the 1994 judgment and sentence.
The trial court had previously vacated the offense in 2005 under RCW 9.94A.640 after Gomez had served his sentence.
The 2005 vacation did not remove immigration consequences; Gomez is in federal custody awaiting removal.
In 2010 Gomez based his motion on constitutional grounds, alleging his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance under Padilla.
The trial court denied the 2010 motion in 2011 on the ground that the judgment had already been vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to entertain after prior vacation	Gomez argues the court retained authority to hear the 2010 motion despite the 2005 vacation.	State maintains the 2005 vacation resolved the matter and the 2010 motion was improperly revived.	Court erred only to the extent it relied solely on the prior vacation as final.
Timeliness and significance of Padilla	Padilla constitutes a significant, material change in the law applying retroactively, affecting time limits.	Padilla's retroactivity is unresolved; timeliness under CrR 7.8 may bar the motion.	Padilla may be a significant change, but Gomez failed to establish ineffective assistance on the merits.
Ineffective assistance standard	Counsel failed to inform about immigration consequences, violating Padilla.	Gomez's conclusory assertion is insufficient without corroboration to show deficient performance.	Gomez failed to prove deficient performance and prejudice.

State v. Swan, 114 Wn.2d 613 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard for CrR 7.8 appeals)
State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600 (2001) (untenable grounds for error in discretionary rulings)
State v. Quismundo, 164 Wn.2d 499 (2008) (wrong legal standard = basis for abuse of discretion)
Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299 (1993) (relevance of correct legal standard in decisions)
State v. Murrey, 30 Wash. 383 (1902) (dismissal concept as persuasive authority)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform plea immigration consequences)
State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163 (2011) (Padilla-based ineffective assistance framework in Washington)
State v. Olivera-Avila, 89 Wn. App. 313 (1997) (testing retroactivity of new law for CrR 7.8 timing)
State v. Martinez, 161 Wn. App. 436 (2011) (ineffective assistance under Strickland framework)
State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870 (2009) (mixed question of fact and law; de novo review for ineffective assistance)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (presumption of effective assistance in Strickland inquiry)