State v. Gach, 297 Neb. 96

In 2010 Buoy P. Gach pleaded no contest to first-degree assault; other charges dismissed; he was sentenced to 10–20 years’ imprisonment.
At the plea hearing the court did not recite the verbatim statutory immigration advisement (§ 29-1819.02(1)); it told Gach his immigration status "could be affected" and he "could be deported."
Gach is not a U.S. citizen. In April 2010 ICE filed an immigration detainer instructing the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) to hold Gach so DHS could assume custody 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 of immigration consequences.
The district court found the court had not given the verbatim advisement (first Yos‑Chiguil factor satisfied) but concluded Gach was warned he could be deported/removal (second factor failed) and denied the motion; Gach appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give the verbatim § 29‑1819.02(1) advisement requires vacatur and plea withdrawal	Gach: court did not give the statutory advisement, so under § 29‑1819.02(2) his conviction must be vacated because he faces immigration consequences	State: substantial compliance or the colloquy warned of deportation/removal, so remedy is not warranted	Court: First prong met (advisement not verbatim); second prong failed—Gach showed he faces removal but did not prove the court failed to communicate that consequence; motion denied, judgment affirmed

State v. Yos-Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591 (2009) (establishes two‑part test for § 29‑1819.02 relief)
State v. Mena-Rivera, 280 Neb. 948 (2010) (ICE detainer establishes that defendant "actually faces" immigration consequences)
State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714 (2014) (admonition that courts should use the precise statutory advisement language)