State v. Sandoval
249 P.3d 1015
Wash.2011Background
- Sandoval, a noncitizen permanent resident, was charged with rape in the second degree and faced a plea offer to reduce to rape in the third degree.
- Sandoval consulted counsel, who advised pleading guilty to avoid immediate deportation and to buy time to obtain immigration counsel.
- Sandoval pled guilty on October 3, 2006; plea form warned about immigration consequences and a court colloquy confirmed review of the plea with counsel.
- Before sentencing, CBP placed a hold on Sandoval, delaying his release and initiating deportation proceedings.
- Sandoval challenged the plea as involuntary due to ineffective assistance; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and this court granted review after Padilla.
- Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) established that counsel must inform noncitizen defendants of deportation risks; this case analyzes the proper Strickland framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's immigration advice met constitutional standards | Sandoval | State | Yes, Sandoval shows ineffective assistance |
| Whether the prejudice prong of Strickland is satisfied | Sandoval | State | Yes, Sandoval would have rejected plea at trial |
| Role of RCW 10.40.200 warnings in prejudice analysis | Sandoval | State | Warnings do not cure defective performance; they influence prejudice assessment |
| Whether Padilla requires a precise remedy for unclear immigration law | Sandoval | State | Padilla requires some warning; case remands to apply Strickland properly |
| Whether the majority erred in treating immigration law as clear and straightforward | Schiffner (Sandoval's counsel) | State | Disagrees with majority; law not succinct; standard remains Strickland-based |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) ( Sixth Amendment requires advising of deportation risks when not straightforward)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice analysis in guilty pleas)
- In re Personal Restraint of Yim, 139 Wash.2d 581 (1999) (collateral consequences of plea not always required to be explained)
- In re Personal Restraint of Grantham, 168 Wash.2d 204 (2010) (prejudice standard for PRP in absence of direct appeal)
- Castro-Baez v. Reno, 217 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2000) ( Ninth Circuit on aggravated felony interpretation for immigration)