State v. Gach, 297 Neb. 96

In 2010 Buoy P. Gach pleaded no contest to one count of first-degree assault; remaining charges were dismissed; he was sentenced to 10–20 years’ imprisonment.
At the change-of-plea hearing the trial court gave an improvised immigration advisement (told Gach his immigration status "could be affected" and that he "could be deported") rather than the verbatim § 29-1819.02(1) language.
Gach, a noncitizen, later learned that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement filed an immigration detainer with the Department of Correctional Services to assume custody upon his release.
In 2014 Gach moved to vacate his conviction and withdraw his plea under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(2), arguing the court failed to give the required advisement and that he faced removal consequences not communicated to him.
The district court found the court had not given the verbatim advisement (first Yos‑Chiguil factor satisfied) but concluded the improvised advisement sufficiently warned Gach of deportation/removal (second factor not satisfied) and denied relief.
Gach appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give the verbatim statutory immigration advisement alone entitles a defendant to vacatur and plea withdrawal under § 29‑1819.02(2)	Gach: The court did not give the required statutory advisement; this procedural deficiency requires vacation of conviction and withdrawal of plea.	State: Failure to use verbatim language is not alone sufficient; defendant must also show an unadvised immigration consequence.	Court: Failure to give verbatim advisement satisfies the first Yos‑Chiguil factor, but is not alone dispositive; defendant must also satisfy the second factor.
Whether Gach faced an immigration consequence that was not communicated at the plea (i.e., whether a detainer/removal was not warned)	Gach: An ICE detainer shows he actually faced removal and the court’s improvised advisement did not adequately communicate that consequence.	State: The court’s advisement that he "could be deported" conveyed the removal consequence; the detainer confirms he actually faced removal but it was warned.	Court: Gach showed he actually faced removal (detainer), but failed to prove the court’s advisement omitted that consequence; second Yos‑Chiguil factor not met, so motion denied.

State v. Yos‑Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591 (establishing two‑part test under § 29‑1819.02(2): (1) court failed to give required advisement and (2) defendant faces an immigration consequence not included in advisement)
State v. Mena‑Rivera, 280 Neb. 948 (placing an ICE detainer constitutes actually facing immigration consequences under § 29‑1819.02)
State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714 (admonition that courts should use the precise statutory advisement language)
State v. Ortega, 290 Neb. 172 (standard for reviewing denial of plea‑withdrawal motion — abuse of discretion)