State v. Ruiz, 316 P.3d 984

Background

Ruiz, a Venezuelan national living in the U.S. illegally, was charged with second-degree sexual abuse of a child but pleaded guilty to a reduced count of attempted sexual abuse (third-degree felony); plea form stated exposure of 0–5 years for that offense.
After pleading, Ruiz retained new counsel and moved to withdraw his plea, alleging prior counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) misstating sentencing exposure for the original charge (telling him a five-year mandatory minimum) and (2) misinforming him about immigration consequences (discouraging consultation with an immigration lawyer and saying the plea would avoid deportation).
Judge Fuchs originally found prior counsel misadvised Ruiz about immigration consequences and allowed withdrawal; the State sought reconsideration and later presented former counsel’s testimony to Judge Skanchy, who credited that testimony and rescinded the withdrawal, finding the plea knowing and voluntary.
On appeal the court of appeals initially vacated Judge Skanchy’s decision for lack of record explanation; the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding reconsideration was proper and that post‑statutory changes require a showing that a plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered to allow withdrawal.
On remand, this court reviewed Strickland ineffective-assistance claims tied to sentencing advice and immigration advice, credited Judge Skanchy’s factual findings, and affirmed denial of the motion to withdraw the plea.

Issues

Issue	Ruiz's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel exaggerated incarceration exposure by saying a five-year minimum applied to the original second-degree charge	Ruiz: counsel told him there was a five-year mandatory minimum, inducing the plea	State: counsel accurately conveyed the "practical" likelihood of ~5 years though statutory exposure was 1–15 years; trial court credited that testimony	Court: counsel did not perform deficiently; Ruiz’s plea was knowing and voluntary
Whether counsel inadequately advised on immigration consequences (Padilla / Rojas‑Martinez claim)	Ruiz: counsel misled or failed to properly advise about deportation risk, rendering plea involuntary	State: counsel warned Ruiz of likely deportation if convicted at trial and of possible immigration consequences from the plea; trial court credited that warning	Court: counsel’s advice met Padilla/Rojas‑Martinez standards; not deficient
Standard for granting presentence motions to withdraw pleas after statutory changes	Ruiz: urged view that motions should be liberally granted (per earlier precedent)	State: pointed to Utah Supreme Court holding statute requires finding plea not knowing/voluntary before granting withdrawal	Court: applied Supreme Court’s guidance—plaintiff must show plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered
Whether trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous	Ruiz: contended court should have credited his affidavit over former counsel’s testimony	State: relied on Judge Skanchy’s credibility determinations crediting former counsel	Court: accepted Judge Skanchy’s credibility findings and did not find clear error

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland to guilty‑plea challenges)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must inform noncitizen client whether plea carries risk of deportation)
State v. Ruiz, 282 P.3d 998 (Utah Supreme Court opinion remanding and clarifying plea‑withdrawal standard)
State v. Rojas‑Martinez, 125 P.3d 930 (Utah Supreme Court: collateral‑consequences rule and affirmative‑misrepresentation exception)