State v. Favela
2015 NMSC 005
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Cesar Favela, a Mexican national and lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and a second DWI; plea was accepted after a colloquy in which the judge warned that conviction would affect immigration status (deportation).
- Defense counsel did not advise Favela pre-plea that the conviction would lead to deportation; the district court later found counsel’s failure to explain deportation.
- After being released from state custody, Favela was detained by ICE and moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 1-060, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise of immigration consequences.
- The district court denied relief, relying solely on the judge’s on-the-record admonition during the plea colloquy and Favela’s affirmative response that he understood; the court concluded Favela suffered no prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding judicial warnings during a plea colloquy cannot alone cure prejudice from counsel’s deficient advice and that such judicial statements (and the strength of the State’s evidence) should receive minimal weight in the prejudice analysis.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals as to the insufficiency of judicial warnings alone to cure prejudice, but rejected a categorical rule assigning minimal weight to particular types of evidence; it remanded for further proceedings and gave guidance on plea colloquies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Favela) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judge’s on-the-record warning during a plea colloquy can, by itself, cure prejudice from counsel’s failure to advise about immigration consequences | Judicial warning should not cure prejudice; counsel’s failure is deficient and the warning cannot substitute for counsel’s advice | Judicial admonition during plea shows defendant understood and therefore no prejudice | A judicial warning alone cannot cure prejudice caused by counsel’s deficient performance; reversal and remand required |
| Whether judicial warnings during colloquy and the strength of the State’s evidence should be given minimal weight categorically in prejudice analysis | Favela argued judicial warnings are insufficient; objective evidence like strength of case may be relevant but not dispositive | State urged Court of Appeals erred in assigning minimal weight to those items | Court declined categorical minimal-weight rule; weight of any evidence (judicial warnings, strength of evidence) must be assessed case-by-case |
| What guidance should courts/judges follow when accepting pleas with possible immigration consequences | Favela emphasized need for meaningful advice from counsel and adequate judicial inquiry into defendant’s understanding | State stressed finality of plea if defendant acknowledged understanding at colloquy | Courts should ensure on-the-record inquiry probes actual understanding (not rote yes/no), may recess to allow private consultation; judges must be satisfied defendant knowingly accepts immigration consequences before accepting plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (Strickland application is fact-specific)
- State v. Paredez, 101 P.3d 799 (N.M. 2004) (counsel must advise specific immigration consequences; judicial advisement does not substitute for counsel)
- Patterson v. LeMaster, 21 P.3d 1032 (N.M. 2001) (prejudice in plea context requires reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
- State v. Carlos, 147 P.3d 897 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (consider defendant’s life circumstances and motivations when assessing prejudice)
- State v. Favela, 311 P.3d 1213 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (Court of Appeals: judicial advisements cannot alone cure prejudice and should be given minimal weight)