State v. Gach, 297 Neb. 96

In 2010 Buoy P. Gach (non‑U.S. citizen) pleaded no contest to first‑degree assault; sentenced to 10–20 years.
The change‑of‑plea colloquy included a nonverbatim, improvised immigration advisement: the court told Gach his immigration status "could be affected" and he "could be deported."
In 2014 Gach moved under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑1819.02(2) to vacate his conviction and withdraw his plea, arguing the court failed to give the statutory advisement.
Parties stipulated the court did not recite the statutory language verbatim and that ICE filed an immigration detainer with the Department of Correctional Services to assume custody upon release.
The district court found the court’s advisement was nonverbatim (first Yos‑Chiguil prong satisfied) but concluded Gach was advised of the relevant consequence (deportation/removal) and denied relief.
Gach appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding Gach failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he faced an immigration consequence not warned of at the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give the verbatim §29‑1819.02(1) advisement requires vacatur under §29‑1819.02(2)	Gach: Court did not give the statutory advisement, so relief follows.	State: Nonverbatim advisement may be substantial compliance; relief requires additional showing.	Court: Nonverbatim advisement satisfies first prong but is not alone enough; must meet both prongs.
Whether Gach actually faces an immigration consequence protected by §29‑1819.02	Gach: ICE detainer shows he faces removal.	State: Agreed detainer indicates potential removal but argues the court’s advisement covered removal.	Court: ICE detainer establishes he actually faces removal.
Whether the court’s advisement failed to communicate the specific immigration consequence Gach faces	Gach: Advisement was incomplete and did not properly warn of removal.	State: The court told him his immigration status could be affected and he could be deported—i.e., warned of removal.	Court: Gach failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that removal was not communicated; second prong not met.
Whether district court abused its discretion in denying plea withdrawal	Gach: Denial was error given advisement failure.	State: No abuse; both Yos‑Chiguil factors not satisfied.	Court: No abuse of discretion; affirmed.

State v. Yos‑Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591 (2009) (establishes two‑prong test for §29‑1819.02 relief: advisement failure and unadvised immigration consequence)
State v. Mena‑Rivera, 280 Neb. 948 (2010) (ICE detainer means defendant "actually faces" immigration consequences under §29‑1819.02)
State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714 (2014) (advisement language is succinct and should be given verbatim; concurrence urging strict compliance)
State v. Ortega, 290 Neb. 172 (2015) (standard for reviewing denial of plea withdrawal—abuse of discretion)