State v. Mendez
2014 WI App 57
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mendez sought to withdraw his guilty plea to maintaining a drug trafficking place under Wis. Stat. § 961.42(1) (2011‑12).
- Trial counsel failed to inform him that this conviction would trigger automatic deportation with no waiver.
- Circuit court rejected withdrawal, applying a prejudiced standard focused on outcomes rather than rational decision under Padilla.
- Padilla requires prejudice if a reasonable person would have rejected the plea to avoid deportation; the court applied the wrong standard.
- Mendez has lived in the U.S. since age 14, is married to a U.S. citizen, and has a U.S. citizen child, creating strong immigration and family-prejudice considerations.
- Counsel admitted failure to inform about deportation consequences and had no record of referring Mendez to an immigration attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Padilla prejudice standard was misapplied | Mendez shows prejudice under Padilla; correct standard requires rational rejection of plea due to deportation consequences. | Prejudice not shown because no certainty of deportation and no trial outcome guaranteed. | Prejudice must be judged by whether rejecting the plea would be rational under the circumstances. |
| Whether counsel's failure to inform about deportation was deficient under Strickland | Counsel failed to provide correct information about automatic deportation. | Failure to inform does not equal misrepresentation; no specific deportation certainty required. | Counsel's failure to inform about clear deportation consequences was deficient performance. |
| Whether the defendant demonstrated a rational basis to reject the plea to avoid deportation | Given family ties and fear of removal, Mendez would likely have rejected the plea. | Risk remained uncertain; plea reduction still served criminal penalty. | A rational noncitizen defendant might reject a plea to avoid deportation, despite prison risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (deportation consequences must be considered when truly clear; prejudice test applies to plea decisions)
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (noncitizen may rationally value removal risk over prison term in plea decisions)
- State v. Sandoval, 249 P.3d 1015 (Wash. 2011) (defendant may rationally risk trial to avoid deportation despite reduced sentence)
- Pilla v. United States, 668 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes cases lacking family ties or clear deportation risk from Padilla's framework)
- Chacon v. State, 409 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (rejected as consistent with Padilla; not controlling where deportation consequences are clear)
- Denisyuk v. State, 30 A.3d 914 (Md. 2011) (recognizes rational decision to risk punishment to avoid deportation)