State v. Sandoval, 851 N.W.2d 656

In 2004 Jose Luis Sandoval pled guilty in Dakota County to possession of methamphetamine; the district court did not advise him of the immigration consequences required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(1).
After serving his sentence, Sandoval filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate the conviction and withdraw his guilty plea, alleging the court’s failure to give the immigration-advisement, ineffective assistance of counsel, and involuntariness of the plea.
Sandoval relied on the common-law coram nobis remedy (recognized in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-101) because he believed he could not pursue relief under § 29-1819.02(2) after completing his sentence.
The district court denied coram nobis relief; Sandoval appealed the denial to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
The narrow legal question presented was whether a writ of error coram nobis may be used to set aside a plea-based conviction on the ground that the court failed to advise the defendant of immigration consequences prior to accepting the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis can be used to vacate a plea-based conviction for failure to advise on immigration consequences	Sandoval: coram nobis should vacate the conviction because the court failed to give the statutory advisement and he faces immigration consequences	State: coram nobis is limited to factual errors unknown at trial; failure to advise is an error of law/statute and does not prevent entry of judgment; statutory remedy exists under § 29-1819.02(2)	Court: Coram nobis unavailable for this claim; affirmed denial of writ

State v. Diaz, 283 Neb. 414, 808 N.W.2d 891 (Neb. 2012) (coram nobis not appropriate to challenge plea-based conviction on ineffective assistance claim tied to immigration-advice failure)
State v. Rodriguez-Torres, 275 Neb. 363, 746 N.W.2d 686 (Neb. 2008) (discusses statutory postconviction remedies for failure to advise)
State v. Wilson, 194 Neb. 587, 234 N.W.2d 208 (Neb. 1975) (coram nobis remedies only for errors of fact, not errors of law)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (ineffective-assistance rule requiring counsel to advise on deportation consequences)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla rule does not apply retroactively)