State v. Villegas, 908 N.W.2d 198

Background

Villegas, an undocumented immigrant brought to the U.S. as a child, was charged as a juvenile with armed robbery, burglary, and false imprisonment for a home invasion; the juvenile court waived jurisdiction and he was charged as an adult.
He pled guilty to armed robbery as party to a crime under an agreement; other counts were dismissed and read in at sentencing. The court conducted a plea colloquy including a general warning about possible immigration consequences.
Defense counsel (Kennedy) testified he spent about two hours reviewing the plea questionnaire with Villegas, warned deportation was very likely, and did not promise any certainty about readmission or DACA eligibility; Villegas testified he did not understand and was not adequately advised.
After sentencing, ICE issued a notice of intent to remove. Villegas filed a postconviction motion to withdraw his plea, alleging defective colloquy and ineffective assistance (failure to advise about DACA/inadmissibility and that plea waived challenge to juvenile waiver); he also sought reversal of the juvenile waiver.
The circuit court denied relief (crediting counsel’s testimony and treating certain concessions as to immigration advice); the court applied Wisconsin authority holding counsel need only warn of immigration risk unless consequence is clear and certain.
On appeal the court affirmed: counsel’s warnings were constitutionally adequate under Padilla and Wisconsin cases; Villegas failed to show prejudice as to the waiver-waiver claim; and his valid plea forfeited nonjurisdictional challenges to the juvenile waiver.

Issues

Issue	Villegas' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for failing to advise Villegas that plea would make him permanently inadmissible or ineligible for DACA?	Counsel should have given specific, definitive immigration advice (permanent inadmissibility and DACA ineligibility); absence prejudiced plea choice.	Immigration consequences are complex and discretionary; counsel gave accurate conditional warnings and need not predict discretionary policies like DACA.	Held for State: counsel’s conditional warnings were adequate; no deficiency under Padilla/Shata/Ortiz-Mondragon.
Was counsel ineffective for failing to tell Villegas that pleading guilty would forfeit challenge to juvenile waiver?	Counsel did not advise that guilty plea would waive nonjurisdictional challenges to juvenile waiver; would have changed decision.	Counsel advised appeal had minimal chance and Villegas chose not to appeal; any omission did not prejudice plea decision.	Held for State: no demonstrated prejudice; unlikely Villegas would have proceeded differently.
Was the plea colloquy defective (Bangert claim) so plea was not knowing, intelligent, voluntary?	Court failed to ensure Villegas understood immigration/readmission consequences and that plea waived juvenile-waiver challenges; Villegas was confused and scared.	Colloquy complied with WIS. STAT. § 971.08; court explained charge, rights, punishment, and immigration risk; questionnaire reviewed and clarified.	Held for State: colloquy adequate; plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Can Villegas challenge the juvenile court's waiver into adult court after pleading guilty?	Waiver was erroneous and counsel ineffective during waiver; should be reviewable on appeal.	Valid guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional challenges (including waiver exercise), unless ineffective-assistance claim affects plea itself.	Held for State: plea forfeited nonjurisdictional challenges (Kraemer); ineffective-assistance claims not tied to voluntariness of plea are waived.

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (defense counsel must give correct advice when deportation consequence is clear; otherwise warn of risk)
State v. Shata, 364 Wis. 2d 63 (Wis. 2015) (post-Padilla: counsel need not predict or certify deportation outcomes; accurate warnings of risk suffice)
State v. Ortiz-Mondragon, 364 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2015) (confirming limits on counsel’s duty to forecast discretionary immigration outcomes)
State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996) (standard for withdrawing plea post-sentencing: clear and convincing proof of manifest injustice)
State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 (Wis. 1986) (plea colloquy requirements and burden shifting when colloquy inadequate)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (valid guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional pre-plea claims)