State v. Molina, A-1-CA-34774

Background

In 1991 Molina (then 21 and in the U.S. unlawfully) pled guilty to criminal sexual penetration and false imprisonment in exchange for a deferred sentence, three years’ probation, and deportation to Mexico; he waived the preliminary hearing and was deported after an INS hearing.
Molina later reentered the U.S. unlawfully and was prosecuted for illegal reentry; in 2014 he moved under Rule 1-060(B)(6) (or coram nobis) to withdraw his 1991 plea, claiming his 1991 counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him the plea would have specific immigration consequences (ineligibility to reenter or to seek citizenship), and that he would not have pled otherwise.
The district court found counsel’s performance deficient regarding advice on immigration consequences and concluded Molina showed a prima facie claim of prejudice, granting leave to withdraw the plea.
The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the ineffective-assistance legal question and for abuse of discretion the withdrawal decision.
The Court of Appeals agreed counsel’s advice was constitutionally deficient (counsel gave only generalized warnings), but held Molina failed to prove prejudice — no reasonable probability he would have refused the favorable plea and gone to trial given the circumstances (benefits of the plea, weakness of the defense, waiver of preliminary hearing, and 23‑year delay in seeking withdrawal).
The appellate court reversed the district court and remanded to reinstate the 1991 plea agreement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 1991 counsel’s failure to advise about specific immigration consequences constituted deficient performance	State conceded failure to advise about specific immigration consequences is deficient (but preserved right to appellate review)	Molina argued counsel did not explain that plea would bar reentry or future citizenship eligibility	Court: Counsel’s advice was constitutionally deficient — generalized warnings were inadequate
Whether Molina suffered prejudice from counsel’s deficient immigration advice such that he would have gone to trial instead of pleading	State argued Molina failed to show a reasonable probability he would have rejected the favorable plea and insisted on trial; no corroborating evidence of intent to go to trial	Molina argued he would have rejected plea if he knew it precluded reentry/citizenship; asserted innocence and reliance on daughter’s future petition	Court: No prejudice shown — facts (favorable plea, risk of deportation regardless, counsel’s warnings, waiver of hearing, long delay to seek withdrawal) make it not reasonably probable he would have gone to trial; reversal of district court

Key Cases Cited

State v. Paredez, 136 N.M. 533, 101 P.3d 799 (N.M. 2004) (standard for ineffective assistance regarding counsel’s advice on immigration consequences and prejudice test for plea withdrawal)
State v. Guerra, 284 P.3d 1076 (N.M. 2012) (recognizing counsel’s failure to advise on immigration consequences can be deficient)
State v. Carlos, 140 N.M. 688, 147 P.3d 897 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (counsel must analyze individualized immigration consequences beyond deportation)
State v. Favela, 343 P.3d 178 (N.M. 2015) (prejudice inquiry is flexible; courts consider corroborating evidence and whether rejecting a plea would be rational)
State v. Caldwell, 143 N.M. 792, 182 P.3d 775 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (appellate courts may conduct independent review of conceded issues)
Ramirez v. State, 333 P.3d 240 (N.M. 2014) (prejudice requires reasonable probability defendant would have insisted on trial)
State v. Gallegos-Delgado, 392 P.3d 200 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017) (factors to corroborate prejudice include pre-plea statements, benefits of plea, and strength of case)
State v. Tejeiro, 345 P.3d 1074 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (similar corroborating-evidence approach to show prejudice)