State v. Gach, 297 Neb. 96

In 2010 Buoy P. Gach pleaded no contest to first-degree assault; remaining charges were dismissed and he was sentenced to 10–20 years’ imprisonment.
At the plea hearing the district court gave an improvised immigration advisement (stating conviction "could affect" immigration status and that he "could be deported") instead of the verbatim statutory language in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(1).
Gach, a noncitizen, later had an ICE immigration detainer filed while in custody indicating DHS would assume custody on release to determine removability.
In 2014 Gach moved under § 29-1819.02(2) to vacate his conviction and withdraw his plea, arguing the court failed to give the proper advisement and he faces immigration consequences not communicated at the plea.
The district court found the court had not used the verbatim statutory advisement but concluded Gach was advised he could be deported and therefore denied the motion; Gach appealed.

Issue	Gach's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give the verbatim § 29-1819.02 advisement requires vacatur and plea withdrawal	Court did not give the required statutory advisement; § 29-1819.02(2) mandates vacatur when advisement missing	Failure to use verbatim language is not alone dispositive; substantial compliance may suffice	Court: Failure to give verbatim advisement satisfies first Yos-Chiguil factor but is not alone enough to vacate
Whether Gach actually faces immigration consequences covered by § 29-1819.02	Gach: ICE detainer shows he faces removal that was not effectively communicated	State: Court told him he "could be deported," which warned of removal	Court: ICE detainer establishes he actually faces removal, satisfying that element
Whether the advisement given communicated the specific immigration consequence of removal	Gach: Improvised advisement was incomplete and failed to warn of the detainer/removal consequence	State: The court’s statement that he "could be deported" sufficiently communicated removal	Court: Gach failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that removal was not communicated; held advisement as given warned of removal
Whether district court abused discretion denying withdrawal of plea	Gach: Denial wrongly ignored statutory requirement and incomplete advisement	State: No abuse—second Yos-Chiguil prong not met	Court: No abuse of discretion; affirmed denial

State v. Yos-Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591, 772 N.W.2d 574 (sets two-part test for § 29-1819.02 relief requiring (1) missing/partial advisement and (2) actual immigration consequence not communicated)
State v. Mena-Rivera, 280 Neb. 948, 791 N.W.2d 613 (ICE detainer constitutes actually facing immigration consequences under § 29-1819.02)
State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714, 850 N.W.2d 788 (discussion/concurrence stressing the importance of using statutory advisement language)
State v. Ortega, 290 Neb. 172, 859 N.W.2d 305 (plea-withdrawal standard and abuse-of-discretion review)