State v. Garcia, 301 Neb. 912

In 2011 Alejandro Garcia pleaded no contest to third-degree domestic assault after the county court read the statutory immigration advisement required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(1); a Spanish interpreter translated the advisement for him.
Years later Garcia moved to vacate and withdraw his plea under § 29-1819.02(2), alleging the interpreter mistranslated the word “removal” (using a Spanish term closer to “expatriate”), so he was not properly warned of deportation risk.
The county court denied the motion; the district court affirmed on law-of-the-case grounds. Garcia appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
The central legal questions were (1) whether § 29-1819.02(2) authorizes a post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea (Garcia had already served his sentence), and (2) whether an inaccurate translation of an otherwise-given advisement permits relief under § 29-1819.02(2).
The Supreme Court concluded trial courts have authority to consider § 29-1819.02(2) motions even after sentence completion (following State v. Rodriguez) but held the statute does not authorize withdrawal based on translation errors when the court actually gave the required advisement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. May a court consider a § 29-1819.02(2) motion after the defendant completed the sentence?	Garcia: court may entertain the motion; statute applies to pleas after July 20, 2002.	State: (and concurring justice) argue Rodriguez-Torres showed no post-sentence remedy; Legislature did not amend.	Court: Yes. Following State v. Rodriguez, § 29-1819.02(2) applies regardless of sentence completion.
2. Does § 29-1819.02(2) allow withdrawal when the advisement was given but translated inaccurately?	Garcia: inadequate translation meant he was not effectively advised and thus may withdraw plea under § 29-1819.02(2).	State: statute conditions relief on court’s failure to advise; translation inaccuracies are not covered.	Court: No. Relief under § 29-1819.02(2) requires the court failed to give all or part of the advisement; translation errors do not satisfy the statute.
3. Could Garcia alternatively prevail on a due process claim based on translation?	Garcia (at oral argument): alleged translation could violate due process.	State: minor translation defects do not automatically amount to constitutional violation; Garcia did not plead a constitutional claim.	Court: Not reached. Motion pleaded only statutory relief; constitutional theory not raised below and is not before the Court.

State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714 (2014) (held § 29-1819.02(2) relief available even after sentence completion)
State v. Rodriguez-Torres, 275 Neb. 363 (2008) (construed § 29-1819.02 as not providing post-sentence remedy for pleas before July 20, 2002)
State v. Medina-Liborio, 285 Neb. 626 (2013) (statute requires only two showings: court failed to give advisement and defendant faces an immigration consequence not included)
State v. Mena-Rivera, 280 Neb. 948 (2010) (rejected reading of prejudice requirement into § 29-1819.02(2))
State v. Gach, 297 Neb. 96 (2017) (applied the two-part showing required under § 29-1819.02(2))
Tapia-Reyes v. Excel Corp., 281 Neb. 15 (2011) (translation errors must be more than minor or isolated to amount to constitutional violation)