State v. Sandoval
171 Wash. 2d 163
| Wash. | 2011Background
- Valentin Sandoval, a noncitizen permanent resident, was charged with second-degree rape.
- The State offered a plea to reduce to third-degree rape; Sandoval consulted his attorney amid concerns about deportation.
- Counsel advised Sandoval to plead guilty, claiming he would not be immediately deported and could later obtain immigration counsel.
- Sandoval pleaded guilty on Oct. 3, 2006; the plea form warned of potential deportation consequences, and the judge confirmed review with counsel.
- Deportation proceedings began after a CBP hold; Sandoval later challenged the plea as involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court of Appeals denied relief; the Washington Supreme Court granted review after Padilla v. Kentucky was decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did counsel's immigration-advising fall short of Padilla's standard? | Sandoval. | State/WAPA. | Yes, performance deficient; counsel downplayed deportation risk. |
| Was there prejudice under Strickland's prejudice prong? | Sandoval would have rejected the plea and gone to trial. | Sandoval faced lighter sentence with plea; potential prejudice uncertain. | Yes, reasonable probability Sandoval would have gone to trial to avoid deportation. |
| Can RCW 10.40.200 warnings cure prejudice or cure deficient performance? | Warnings could not salvage deficient performance. | Warnings plus colloquy may cure prejudice. | Warnings do not cure deficient performance; prejudice remains. |
| Should the court remand or vacate based on Padilla and Strickland? | Vacate and remand for proper relief. | Court could cure at sentencing with proper warnings. | Reverse, vacate conviction, remand for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (deportation consequences fall within right to counsel; standard depends on clarity of law)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice inquiry in guilty pleas relies on whether would have insisted on going to trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- In re Personal Restraint of Lord, 152 Wn.2d 182 (2004) (prejudice standard for PRP differing when no direct appeal available)
- In re Personal Restraint of Grantham, 168 Wn.2d 204 (2010) (prejudice framework when appealing through PRP)
- McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (evidence-based approach to ineffective assistance claims)
- Castro-Baez v. Reno, 217 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2000) (immigration consequences and aggravated felony definitions in INA)