State v. Medina-Liborio
285 Neb. 626
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Nebraska enacted 2002 statute requiring immigration advisement before accepting a guilty or no contest plea for noncitizens, with vacatur and withdrawal remedy if advisement is not given and immigration consequences may follow.
- Medina-Liborio pled no contest on Nov 22, 2010 to amended counts of attempted first-degree sexual assault of a child and kidnapping, with consecutive 20–25 year sentences.
- Court of Appeals memorandum note acknowledged lack of advisement but affirmed denial of relief.
- At motion to withdraw pleas, the district court admitted DHS deportation detainer and jail calls, and trial counsel testimony; attorney-client privilege asserted.
- District court denied the motion; the Nebraska Supreme Court ultimately reverses and remands for further proceedings, addressing whether knowledge of immigration consequences can bar relief under § 29-1819.02.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to provide § 29-1819.02 advisement requires vacating pleas. | Medina-Liborio: no advisement; entitled to withdraw. | State: knowledge of consequences may bar withdrawal. | Yes; advisement failure entitles withdrawal, unless other law governs. |
| Whether actual knowledge of immigration consequences defeats relief. | Medina-Liborio knew deportation could follow from conviction. | State: knowledge may preclude relief. | Knowledge alone does not bar relief; but Court remands to consider evidence consistently. |
| Whether admission of evidence about deportation knowledge (jail calls, attorney testimony) was proper. | Admission should be limited; relevance contested. | Evidence relevant to whether advisement was effectively understood. | Court did not resolve other evidentiary issues; relief remains governed by § 29-1819.02. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mena-Rivera, 280 Neb. 948 (2010) (advisement must be given before plea; prejudice not required for withdrawal under § 29-1819.02)
- State v. Yos-Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591 (2009) (two elements to withdraw: advisement failure and immigration consequence not included)
- State v. Mindrup, 221 Neb. 773 (1986) (illustrates distinguishability where no statutorily defined advisement right; preexisting rights analysis not controlling here)
- State v. Graff, 282 Neb. 746 (2011) (statutory interpretation and application guidance for advisements)
- State v. Halverstadt, 282 Neb. 736 (2011) (related to interpretation of immigration advisement and § 29-1819.02)