State v. Gonzalez
285 Neb. 940
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Gonzalez pled no contest to fraudulently obtaining public assistance in 2008; court advised possible immigration consequences before plea; sentenced to 5 years' probation.
- Deportation consequences led to alleged ineffective assistance claim under Padilla v. Kentucky after its 2010 decision; motion to withdraw plea filed July 14, 2010.
- District court held evidentiary hearing; found deficient performance but no prejudice; denied motion to withdraw plea.
- This court originally held the motion procedurally proper and that Padilla may apply retroactively, then granted rehearing to reconsider.
- After Chaidez v. U.S. clarified non-retroactivity of Padilla, the court substituted a new opinion concluding the defendant’s remedy was under the Nebraska Postconviction Act and that the common-law withdrawal procedure was unavailable; jurisdiction to hear the appeal was lacking.
- The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear withdrawal motion after final conviction | Gonzalez argues a postconviction or common-law remedy allows withdrawal post-final conviction. | State contends only the Act or limited common-law avenues apply, and jurisdiction is limited. | District court and this court lack jurisdiction; Act available, common-law remedy unavailable. |
| Whether the Postconviction Act was available to Gonzalez within the one-year window after Padilla | Act was available; she was within custody during probation; could raise claim under Act. | Act applies only if available; record questions federal custody and custody status. | Act was available; Gonzalez did not show unavailability; remedy under Act existed. |
| Whether a Nebraska common-law procedure to withdraw a plea after final conviction exists and applies here | A recognized common-law withdrawal procedure exists for final judgments when constitutional rights are at issue. | Common-law remedy does not apply post-final conviction absent Act relief. | Common-law withdrawal exists only in narrow constitutional contexts and is unavailable here. |
| Scope of the Act vs. common-law remedy in safeguarding rights | The common-law path should be available to vindicate ineffective counsel claims. | Act is primary; common-law is not a concurrent remedy for these claims. | Act is the primary remedy; common-law path unavailable when Act could be invoked. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (duty to advise on deportation consequences)
- Chaidez v. U.S., 133 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2013) (Padilla not retroactive)
- State v. Yos-Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591, 772 N.W.2d 574 (Neb. 2009) (recognition of common-law withdrawal for final judgments (historical) and relation to Act)
- State v. Rodriguez-Torres, 275 Neb. 363, 746 N.W.2d 686 (Neb. 2008) (statutory vs. common-law remedy for withdrawal of plea)
- State v. Kluge, 198 Neb. 115, 251 N.W.2d 737 (Neb. 1977) (common-law withdrawal concepts and manifest injustice)
- State v. Holtan, 216 Neb. 594, 344 N.W.2d 661 (Neb. 1984) (manifest injustice standard in withdrawal context)
- State v. El-Tabech, 259 Neb. 509, 610 N.W.2d 737 (Neb. 2000) (limitations on nonstatutory remedies)