State v. Chiroy Osorio
286 Neb. 384
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Chiroy Osorio pled no contest in 2002 to attempted first degree arson and was later sentenced to 20–24 months.
- He was discharged in 2003 and deported; he reentered the U.S. and faced possible removal based on the 2002 plea.
- Nebraska §29-1819.02 advising noncitizens about immigration consequences was not in effect at plea time; it became effective two days before sentencing.
- Osorio alleged neither the court nor counsel advised him of immigration consequences before conviction became final.
- In 2012 Osorio filed a motion to withdraw his plea and vacate the conviction; the district court denied it and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly denied postconviction relief | Osorio asserts due process/ineffective assistance claims vitiated by lack of immigration advisement. | State contends no postconviction remedy exists for pre-July 20, 2002 pleas; no custody; and Padilla rights do not apply retroactively. | District court properly denied relief. |
| Whether § 29-1819.02 provides relief for pleas before July 20, 2002 | Osorio relies on potential withdrawal under § 29-1819.02. | State argues the statute does not permit withdrawal for pre-July 20, 2002 pleas and Rodriguez-Torres controls. | No basis for relief under § 29-1819.02. |
| Whether Padilla/Chaidez apply to Osorio’s claim of manifest injustice | Padilla asserts a right to immigration-consequence advice; Chaidez limits retroactivity. | Chaidez bars Padilla-based relief because conviction final before Padilla; Osorio not in custody. | Padilla/Chaidez do not authorize relief here. |
| Whether the district court’s lack of detailed reasoning requires reversal | Osorio argues for explicit reasoning on denial. | State contends lack of articulated reasoning does not mandate reversal when result is correct. | No reversal; reasoning omission inconsequential. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gonzalez, 285 Neb. 940 (Neb. 2013) (postconviction/Padilla-related discussion cited)
- State v. Rodriguez-Torres, 275 Neb. 363 (Neb. 2008) (pre-2002 plea withdrawal interpretation)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (competent representation; immigration consequences)
- Chaidez v. U.S., 133 S. Ct. 1103 (S. Ct. 2013) (Padilla relief not retroactive)
- State v. Miller, 6 Neb. App. 363 (Neb. App. 1998) (postconviction/appellate standards)
- Hartman v. Hartman, 261 Neb. 359 (Neb. 2001) (postconviction standards)