State v. Garcia, 920 N.W.2d 708

In 2011 Alejandro Garcia pleaded no contest to third-degree domestic assault after a court advisement, which (on the record) matched Nebraska’s statutory immigration warning under § 29-1819.02(1); a Spanish interpreter conveyed the advisement to Garcia.
Years later Garcia moved to withdraw his plea under § 29-1819.02(2), claiming the interpreter mistranslated the word “removal” (used by the judge) as the Spanish equivalent of “expatriate,” causing him not to understand that conviction could result in removal from the U.S.
The county court denied Garcia’s motion; the district court affirmed on law-of-the-case grounds; Garcia appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered (1) whether § 29-1819.02(2) can be invoked after a sentence is completed and (2) whether an inaccurate translation (despite the court having given the advisement) is a basis to withdraw a plea under that statute.
The Court reaffirmed that § 29-1819.02(2) authorizes courts to consider motions to vacate/withdraw pleas even after the sentence is served, but held the statute allows withdrawal only when the court failed to give all or part of the required advisement.
Because Garcia conceded the court actually gave the advisement, the Court held he could not withdraw his plea under § 29-1819.02(2) based solely on a translation error; his motion did not assert a due process claim, so that constitutional question was not decided.

Issue	Garcia's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 29-1819.02(2) authorizes a court to consider a plea-withdrawal motion after the defendant has completed his sentence	§ 29-1819.02(2) should allow withdrawal post-sentence to remedy lack of proper advisement	The statute does not permit post-sentence relief	Court: § 29-1819.02(2) does authorize consideration of motions regardless of sentence completion (followed Rodriguez)
Whether a translation error (when the court itself gave the advisement) permits plea withdrawal under § 29-1819.02(2)	Mistranslation prevented Garcia from receiving the advisement’s meaning and thus entitles him to withdrawal	Statute requires the court to have failed to give the advisement; translation errors are not covered by the statute’s text	Court: Statute permits withdrawal only if the court failed to advise; translation errors are not a statutory basis for withdrawal
Whether due process claim based on inadequate translation supports relief	Translation error violated Garcia’s due process/right to understand proceedings	No constitutional claim was pleaded or argued below; statute governs motion	Court: Did not decide due process issue because Garcia did not plead it; noted not all interpretation errors rise to constitutional violation

State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714 (held § 29-1819.02(2) relief may be available after sentence completion)
State v. Rodriguez-Torres, 275 Neb. 363 (discussed limits on post-sentence authority under § 29-1819.02 prior to recognition of subsection (2) relief)
State v. Medina-Liborio, 285 Neb. 626 (interpreting the two-showing requirement for § 29-1819.02(2) relief)
State v. Mena-Rivera, 280 Neb. 948 (refusing to read additional prerequisites, like prejudice, into § 29-1819.02(2))
State v. Gach, 297 Neb. 96 (applying the two-part test for withdrawal under § 29-1819.02(2))
State v. Yos-Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591 (clarifying the statute’s scope as to post-2002 pleas)
Tapia-Reyes v. Excel Corp., 281 Neb. 15 (discussing that imperfect interpretation does not necessarily violate due process)
State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 295 Neb. 1014 (recognizing language comprehension issues can implicate constitutional rights)