State v. Gallegos-Delgado
34,321
| N.M. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2016Background
- Manuel Gallegos-Delgado, an undocumented immigrant, pleaded guilty to cocaine possession and DUI on May 30, 2013 in exchange for the State not opposing a conditional discharge of the possession charge and a probated/deferred sentence.
- At plea colloquy, counsel told the court she had explained immigration consequences and Defendant stated he had consulted an immigration attorney; the court warned Defendant he may be deported. Under federal law, a conditional discharge can count as a conviction for immigration purposes.
- Defendant violated probation, the conditional discharge was withdrawn, and DHS initiated removal proceedings; an Immigration Judge denied cancellation/adjustment/voluntary removal and found Defendant could not lawfully return to the U.S.
- Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing trial counsel failed to advise him of the specific immigration consequences (permanent bar to reentry and loss of remedies), not merely that deportation was possible; counsel conceded she did not know or advise on many specific immigration consequences.
- The district court denied the motion, finding Defendant had been advised and counsel was not deficient. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding counsel’s failure to advise of specific immigration consequences was deficient performance and that Defendant was prejudiced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gallegos-Delgado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered deficient performance by failing to advise of specific immigration consequences of plea | Counsel told Defendant of deportation; plea colloquy and Defendant’s statements show he was advised; no deficiency | Counsel failed to provide required, specific, individualized advice about immigration consequences (beyond generic deportation warnings) | Counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to analyze and advise on the specific federal immigration consequences |
| Whether Defendant was prejudiced by the deficient advice (i.e., would have rejected plea) | Strong state case; Defendant expressed desire to accept plea despite immigration attorney input; no evidence he preferred trial | Defendant took steps before conviction (consulted immigration counsel, married) showing he sought to avoid immigration consequences; post-conviction actions corroborate he would have rejected plea if properly advised | Prejudice shown: reasonable probability Defendant would have rejected plea given severe, specific immigration consequences and his connections to the U.S. |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to hear claim while Defendant is in ICE custody | The judgment is not void because conditional discharge is not a conviction under state law | Conditional discharge counts as a conviction under federal law and was the basis for removal consequences; Rule 1-060(B)(4) allows challenge by one in ICE custody | Court has jurisdiction under Rule 1-060(B)(4); conditional discharge operates as a conviction for immigration purposes |
| Appropriate remedy after finding ineffective assistance at plea stage | District court’s denial should stand | Withdraw guilty plea / further proceedings | Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion (set aside plea) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (ineffective assistance analysis applies to plea negotiations)
- Paredez v. State, 136 N.M. 533 (N.M. 2004) (attorney must advise noncitizen of specific immigration consequences; failure is deficient)
- Carlos v. State, 147 P.3d 897 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (requires individualized analysis of immigration consequences)
- Tejeiro v. State, 345 P.3d 1074 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (prejudice analysis and corroborating evidence for plea-withdrawal claims)
- Favela v. State (Favela II), 343 P.3d 178 (N.M. 2015) (jurisdiction and importance of clear understanding of immigration consequences)