State v. Gach, 297 Neb. 96

In 2009 Gach was charged with two counts of first-degree assault and two weapons counts arising from a shooting; in January 2010 he pleaded no contest to one count of first-degree assault under a plea agreement.
At the plea hearing the court did not recite the verbatim immigration advisement required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(1); the court told Gach his immigration status could be affected and that he "could be deported."
Gach, a noncitizen, was sentenced in April 2010 to 10–20 years; ICE lodged an immigration detainer with the Department of Correctional Services on April 14, 2010, and DCS intended to hold Gach for DHS custody at sentence end.
In November 2014 Gach moved pro se under § 29-1819.02(2) to vacate his conviction and withdraw his plea for failure to give the statutorily required advisement; the district court held an evidentiary hearing.
The district court found the statutory advisement was not given verbatim (first Yos-Chiguil factor satisfied) but concluded Gach was advised of the risk of deportation and thus failed to show an immigration consequence not included in the advisement (second Yos-Chiguil factor failed); it denied relief.
Gach appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion: first prong satisfied, second prong not met because the court’s statement that he "could be deported," combined with the ICE detainer showing he actually faced removal, meant he was warned of the relevant consequence.

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: the court did not give the required statutory advisement, so he is entitled to vacatur unless he was warned of the immigration consequence	State: substantial compliance or the court’s statement that he “could be deported” adequately warned him; denial of relief was proper	Court: First Yos‑Chiguil prong satisfied (advisement not verbatim). But vacatur still requires second prong; failure to give verbatim advisement alone is insufficient.
Whether an ICE detainer shows the defendant "actually faces" removal for purposes of § 29-1819.02 and whether the court’s wording covered that consequence	Gach: He faced removal (ICE detainer) and the court’s improvised advisement omitted critical statutory language; thus relief is warranted	State: ICE detainer shows he faced removal, and the court’s statement that he “could be deported” put him on notice of removal	Court: An ICE detainer establishes the defendant actually faces immigration consequences. But Gach failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that removal was a consequence not communicated to him; denial of motion affirmed.

State v. Yos‑Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591 (establishes two‑part test under § 29-1819.02(2): (1) court failed to give all or part of statutory advisement and (2) defendant faces an immigration consequence not included in the advisement given)
State v. Mena‑Rivera, 280 Neb. 948 (ICE detainer means defendant "actually faces" immigration consequences under § 29-1819.02)
State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714 (discussion stressing that courts should recite the precise statutory advisement)
State v. Ortega, 290 Neb. 172 (standards on appellate review of plea‑withdrawal denials)