State v. Favela, 343 P.3d 178

Cesar Favela, a Mexican national and lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated battery and one count of second-offense DWI; at plea colloquy the judge warned that conviction would result in deportation (removal).
Defense counsel did not advise Favela before the plea that deportation was virtually certain; the district court found counsel’s failure and nonetheless accepted the plea after the judge’s admonition.
After release from short incarceration Favela was taken into ICE custody and, through new counsel, moved to withdraw his plea under Rule 1-060 NMRA, claiming ineffective assistance for failure to advise of immigration consequences.
The district court denied relief, relying solely on the judge’s colloquy warning and Favela’s on-the-record acknowledgment that he understood deportation could result.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed, holding a judicial warning alone cannot cure counsel’s deficient performance and should be afforded minimal weight in the prejudice analysis; the State appealed.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals: a judge’s plea-colloquy warning cannot, by itself, cure the prejudice resulting from counsel’s failure to advise; but declined to adopt a per se rule that particular types of evidence (judicial warnings or strength of the prosecution’s case) receive minimal weight — weight is case-specific.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a judge’s plea-colloquy warning that a conviction will result in deportation can, by itself, cure prejudice from counsel’s failure to advise about immigration consequences	Judicial warning should suffice to show the defendant understood consequences and thus no prejudice	Judicial warning does not replace counsel’s duty; it cannot alone cure prejudice from deficient advice	A judicial warning cannot, by itself, cure the prejudice caused by counsel’s failure to advise; reversal and remand affirmed
Whether certain evidence (judicial warnings; strength of State’s case) must be given minimal weight in prejudice analysis of immigration-related ineffective-assistance claims	Court of Appeals erred in imposing a rule that such evidence gets minimal weight	Such evidence is generally unreliable to show informed, counseled decision and should receive minimal weight	Court rejects a categorical minimal-weight rule; the weight afforded to specific types of evidence must be determined case-by-case in light of the record

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (prejudice inquiry under Strickland depends on case-specific facts)
Paredez v. State, 136 N.M. 533 (recognizes counsel’s duty to advise about immigration consequences and that judicial advisement does not cure deficient counsel)
Patterson v. LeMaster, 130 N.M. 179 (prejudice in plea cases measured by reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
Barnett v. State, 125 N.M. 739 (mixed question review for ineffective assistance; no mechanical prejudice rules)
Carlos v. State, 140 N.M. 686 (consider defendant’s life circumstances as relevant evidence of prejudice)