State v. Sanmartin Prado
141 A.3d 99
Md.2016Background
- Defendant Juan Carlos Sanmartin Prado, an Ecuadorian lawful permanent resident, proceeded by a not-guilty plea on an agreed statement of facts and was convicted of second-degree child abuse; sentence included imprisonment and probation.
- At a pre-plea meeting trial counsel told Prado that the offense was "deportable" and that he "could be deported if the federal government chose to initiate deportation proceedings," and that there "could and probably would be immigration consequences."
- Prado later filed a writ of error coram nobis claiming trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him he would be automatically deportable; he said he would have gone to trial had he known.
- The circuit court credited trial counsel’s testimony and denied coram nobis relief; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding counsel’s qualified advisals deficient under Padilla.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Special Appeals, holding counsel’s advisals were correct under Padilla and not constitutionally deficient; it also held the agreed-statement plea was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea for immigration-advisal purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prado) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s qualification ("could/possibly/probably") rendered advice constitutionally deficient under Padilla | Counsel’s equivocal language failed to inform Prado that conviction made him deportable; thus advice was inadequate and ineffective | Counsel warned Prado pre-plea that the offense was deportable and that deportation was possible if federal authorities acted; this was correct and compliant with Padilla and Maryland Rule 4-242(f) | Counsel’s pre-plea advisals that the offense was deportable and that deportation could occur were "correct advice" under Padilla and not deficient |
| Whether a not-guilty plea by agreed statement of facts is a functional equivalent of a guilty plea for immigration-advisal purposes | Prado: the plea was effectively a guilty disposition and required the same advisals as a guilty plea | State: not materially different; the agreed facts made conviction almost certain so Padilla applies | Court: the agreed-statement plea was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea here, so Padilla standards apply |
| Whether trial counsel violated Maryland Rule 4-242(f) by not advising on the record of immigration consequences | Prado: Rule requires on-the-record advisal and counsel failed to advise unequivocally | State: counsel advised Prado both off-record (pre-plea) and on the record that no promises could be made about federal action; this satisfied the Rule | Court: counsel’s warnings satisfied Rule 4-242(f)(1); Rule does not mandate particular phrasing or exclusive on-the-record advisal |
| Whether coram nobis relief was warranted based on ineffective assistance | Prado: deficient performance prejudiced him because he would have gone to trial | State: no deficient performance, so no Strickland prejudice inquiry is necessary | Court: Prado failed Strickland’s performance prong; coram nobis relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise whether a plea carries a risk of deportation; clear deportation consequences require correct advice)
- Denisyuk v. State, 422 Md. 462 (2011) (applying Padilla: counsel’s failure to advise of deportation consequences was constitutionally deficient)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
- Chacon v. State, 409 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (qualifying language such as "very likely" deportation can satisfy Padilla when advice is correct)
- State v. Shata, 868 N.W.2d 93 (Wis. 2015) (advice that a plea carried a "strong chance" of deportation satisfied Padilla where deportation is not absolutely certain)
- Commonwealth v. Escobar, 70 A.3d 838 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (counsel’s advisal that deportation was likely or possible constituted correct advice under Padilla)