State v. Fernando Ortiz-Mondragon
364 Wis. 2d 1
| Wis. | 2015Background
- Defendant Fernando Ortiz-Mondragon (noncitizen; in U.S. since 1997) pled no-contest to substantial battery (with domestic-abuse enhancer) as part of a plea that resulted in probation and brief jail time.
- Plea colloquy and written plea questionnaire warned that the plea "could result in deportation, the exclusion of admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law." Counsel signed the waiver form and the court gave statutory immigration warnings under Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c).
- After serving his county sentence, ICE detained Ortiz-Mondragon and commenced removal proceedings; he agreed to voluntary departure.
- He later moved postconviction to withdraw the no-contest plea, alleging Padilla-based ineffective assistance of counsel: that counsel failed to advise the plea would mandatorily cause deportation/permanent exclusion because the offense was a "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT).
- The circuit court denied the motion without a Machner hearing; the court of appeals affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding counsel was not deficient under Padilla because immigration law was not "succinct, clear, and explicit" that his offense was a CIMT, and counsel gave adequate, equivocal warnings.
Issues
| Issue | Ortiz-Mondragon's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective under Padilla for failing to advise that the plea would certainly cause deportation/permanent exclusion | Counsel failed to tell him the plea would mandatorily cause deportation/permanent exclusion because the conviction was a CIMT; he would have refused the plea or sought a different one | Padilla requires only more specific advice when consequences are "succinct, clear, and explicit"; here law is unclear so advising that the plea "may" carry immigration risk satisfied Padilla | Held: Counsel was not deficient; advising that the plea "could/may" result in immigration consequences was adequate because immigration law was not clear that the offense was a CIMT |
| Whether federal immigration law is "succinct, clear, and explicit" that substantial battery with a domestic-abuse enhancer is a CIMT | Ortiz-Mondragon: analogous precedents and practice materials show domestic battery generally treated as a CIMT | State: circuit split and lack of statutory definition make CIMT analysis unclear; cited cases do not clearly control for Wisconsin statute/offense | Held: Immigration law is not sufficiently clear; whether a given battery is a CIMT is case-by-case and jurisdiction-dependent, so not "succinct, clear, and explicit." |
| Whether counsel performed constitutionally inadequate investigation into immigration consequences | Ortiz-Mondragon: counsel failed to research relevant immigration law and his status; more research would have shown the offense was a CIMT | State/court: record shows counsel provided paperwork, discussed the plea, and acknowledged an ICE hold; additional research would not have produced a clear answer | Held: No deficient investigation shown; record supports that counsel did some research and additional research would not have made consequences clear |
| Remedy: Whether Ortiz-Mondragon is entitled to withdraw plea (manifest injustice standard post‑sentencing) | He would have rejected plea or sought trial/alternative plea if properly advised; thus he suffered prejudice | State: no deficient performance so no need to reach prejudice; plea knowingly and voluntarily entered | Held: Motion to withdraw plea denied; because counsel not deficient, court did not reach prejudice; convictions and plea stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen of deportation consequences; duty depends on whether consequences are clear)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits on modified categorical approach for determining offense elements)
- Garcia‑Meza v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2008) (discussion of moral turpitude in assault/battery context; analysis emphasizing deliberate conduct and bodily harm)
- Coyomani‑Cielo v. Holder, 758 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2014) (Seventh Circuit context noting domestic battery as a CIMT in background of removal litigation)