State v. Favela
2013 NMCA 102
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cesar Favela, a Mexican national and U.S. permanent resident, pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and one DUI, and was sentenced under a plea agreement.
- At the plea hearing the trial judge warned Favela that conviction "would have an effect on your immigration status" and would result in deportation; Favela acknowledged understanding and the court accepted the plea.
- After serving his sentence, Favela was detained by ICE and filed for postjudgment relief: a Rule 1-060 motion and, alternatively, a habeas petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise him of immigration consequences of the plea.
- The district court denied relief, relying in large part on the trial court’s on-the-record immigration warning and Favela’s acknowledgement. Favela appealed.
- The Court of Appeals addressed (1) the correct procedural vehicle and jurisdiction when a convicted person is in ICE custody, (2) mootness, and (3) whether the trial court’s plea colloquy warnings cure counsel’s failure to advise regarding deportation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is properly before the Court (jurisdiction / correct procedural vehicle) | State: treated as habeas; appeal should be by certiorari to NM Supreme Court | Favela: Rule 1-060(B)(4) motion is proper because he was detained by ICE after sentence | Court: Filing while in ICE custody does not satisfy habeas “in custody”; Rule 1-060(B)(4) is the correct vehicle and this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal |
| Mootness of appeal after Favela’s deportation | State: deportation renders appeal moot | Favela: withdrawal of plea could permit reopening immigration proceedings or discretionary reentry; collateral consequences persist | Court: Deportation did not render appeal moot because withdrawal of plea could affect reentry; appeal not moot |
| Whether counsel’s failure to advise re: immigration consequences satisfied deficient-performance prong under Paredez | State: argued Favela did not meet prima facie showing (district court allowed testimony) | Favela: counsel failed to advise that deportation was virtually certain as required by Paredez | Court: Failure to advise satisfies deficient-performance under Paredez (court assumed allegations true for purposes of analysis and remanded for further proceedings) |
| Whether trial court’s on-the-record immigration warning during plea colloquy cures counsel’s deficiency and defeats prejudice | State: trial-court warning and Favela’s sworn acknowledgment show plea was knowing and cure any counsel error | Favela: counsel’s failure cannot be cured by court admonition; counsel’s role in advising and negotiating is distinct | Court: A trial court’s warning is never, by itself, sufficient to cure counsel’s deficient representation; such warnings merit minimal weight in prejudice analysis, so matter remanded for further fact-finding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Paredez, 136 N.M. 533 (N.M. 2004) (New Mexico Supreme Court requires counsel to advise noncitizen clients of specific immigration consequences and that advising a client they "may" be deported is inadequate)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (defense counsel must inform noncitizen client when deportation consequence is clear; more limited when law is unclear)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1989) (once a sentence has fully expired, collateral consequences like deportation do not, by themselves, satisfy federal habeas "in custody" requirement)