State v. Gach, 297 Neb. 96

In 2010 Buoy P. Gach, a noncitizen, pleaded no contest to first-degree assault; remaining charges were dismissed; he was sentenced to 10–20 years.
At the plea hearing the court did not recite the exact statutory immigration advisement in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(1); the court told Gach his immigration status "could be affected" and that he "could be deported."
In 2010 ICE filed an immigration detainer with the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) to take custody of Gach after his sentence to determine removability.
In 2014 Gach moved to vacate his conviction and withdraw his plea under § 29-1819.02(2), arguing the court failed to give the required advisement and that he faced immigration consequences not communicated to him.
The district court found the court had not given the verbatim advisement (satisfying the first Yos‑Chiguil prong) but concluded Gach was advised of deportation/removal and therefore denied the motion.
Gach appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether Gach proved by clear and convincing evidence that he faced immigration consequences not included in the advisement actually given.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court’s failure to give the verbatim § 29-1819.02(1) advisement entitles vacatur	Gach: court failed to give the statutory advisement; first Yos‑Chiguil prong satisfied	State: substantial compliance may suffice; but not dispositive here	Court: first prong satisfied—court did not give verbatim advisement; improvised language was noncompliant
Whether defendant must show an immigration consequence not communicated at plea	Gach: he faces deportation/removal and was not adequately warned	State: court told him he could be deported; that warned him of removal	Court: defendant must prove (by clear and convincing evidence) he actually faces a consequence not included in advisement; Gach failed this second prong
Whether an ICE detainer means the defendant "actually faces" immigration consequences under § 29-1819.02	Gach: ICE detainer shows he actually faces removal	State: does not dispute detainer shows risk	Court: an ICE detainer establishes that the defendant actually faces immigration consequences sufficient to invoke § 29-1819.02
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying plea withdrawal	Gach: denial abused discretion because advisement was inadequate and consequence not warned	State: no abuse because removal/deportation was communicated	Court: no abuse—Gach showed noncompliance but not that an uncommunicated immigration consequence existed; judgment affirmed

State v. Yos-Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591 (establishing two‑prong test for § 29-1819.02 relief)
State v. Mena-Rivera, 280 Neb. 948 (ICE detainer constitutes actually facing immigration consequences)
State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714 (admonition that courts should recite statutory advisement verbatim)
State v. Ortega, 290 Neb. 172 (standard for reviewing plea‑withdrawal decisions)