State v. Rodriguez, 850 N.W.2d 788

Rodriguez moved in 2013 to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his 2004 conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance; he claimed lack of proper immigration advisement under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(1) and potential immigration consequences.
The plea was accepted in 2004 with 2 years’ probation; Rodriguez alleged he was not properly advised of immigration consequences before pleading guilty.
The district court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the motion was filed after sentence completion; Rodriguez appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court previously addressed § 29-1819.02(2) in Yos-Chiguil and Rodriguez-Torres, indicating the statute provides a remedy for unadvised pleas, but the scope post-sentence completion was unsettled.
The Court held that § 29-1819.02(2) remedies apply to pleas accepted on or after July 20, 2002, and that completion of sentence does not bar jurisdiction for such motions; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
The opinion emphasizes that the remedy is a collateral attack mechanism, and confirms the standalone statutory framework and its purpose to promote fairness in immigration advisement

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §29-1819.02(2) grants relief after sentence completion	Rodriguez argues the district court lacked jurisdiction after completion.	State contends relief is limited by timing in Rodriguez-Torres	Jurisdiction exists for pleas after July 20, 2002, regardless of sentence completion
What constitutes the ‘defendant’ for §29-1819.02(2) scope	Rodriguez asserts the remedy applies broadly to defendants.	State argues fear that extension is limited to unserved sentences	The defendant refers to the movant in the same criminal proceeding; the remedy applies to pleas after July 20, 2002
Relation of Rodriguez-Torres and Yos-Chiguil to current case	Rodriguez relies on Rodriguez-Torres to limit relief	State relies on Rodriguez-Torres as controlling precedent for limits	Rodriguez-Torres is not binding to preclude relief here; Yos-Chiguil clarifies; not dicta to bar relief

State v. Yos-Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591 (2009) (rejected reading §29-1819.02(2) as limited to direct review; extended relief context)
State v. Rodriguez-Torres, 275 Neb. 363 (2008) (held no procedure for pre-2002 pleas; dicta on sentence completion limitations)
State v. Yuma, 286 Neb. 244 (2013) (clarified scope of postconviction/common-law remedies)
State v. Medina-Liborio, 285 Neb. 626 (2013) (requires showing of unadvised immigration consequences; prejudice not required)
State v. Mena-Rivera, 280 Neb. 948 (2010) (withdrawal of plea under §29-1819.02 requires advisement failure and immigration consequence)
State v. Gonzalez, 285 Neb. 940 (2013) (recognizes limited common-law collateral attack remedy; relevance to advisement failures)
State v. Chiroy Osorio, 286 Neb. 384 (2013) (affirms scope of postconviction-like remedies in immigration advisement context)