State v. Yuma, 286 Neb. 244

Yuma pled no contest to two misdemeanors; sentenced to two concurrent 1-year terms with credit for time served and released the same day.
Yuma later moved to withdraw his pleas claiming ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration consequences under Padilla v. Kentucky.
District court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the common-law motion since Yuma had completed his sentence.
Nebraska courts previously addressed available remedies: §29-1819.02, the Postconviction Act, and a Nebraska common-law withdrawal procedure.
Court analyzed whether the Postconviction Act ever applied to Yuma and whether Padilla’s rule could be applied retroactively.
Holding: Supreme Court reversed and remanded for proceedings on timeliness and manifest injustice, recognizing jurisdiction to hear the common-law motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court had jurisdiction to hear the common-law motion to withdraw pleas	Yuma (Yuma) argues district court has jurisdiction	Yuma contends lack of jurisdiction due to completed sentence	Yes, the district court has jurisdiction
Whether Padilla applies to Yuma’s case	Padilla applies; counsel failed to warn of deportation risk	Padilla created new rule after plea; not retroactive to Yuma	Padilla applies to Yuma
Whether the Nebraska Postconviction Act was available to Yuma	Act could provide relief	Act not available since not prisoner in custody under sentence	Act not available to Yuma
Whether Padilla’s rule should be applied retroactively under Griffith framework	Retroactive per Griffith and Chaidez/Teague framework	Not retroactive to older cases unless applicable rule	Padilla retroactively applicable to Yuma; remand for timeliness/manifest injustice consideration

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client of deportation risk; new constitutional rule)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 216 (2013) (2013) (retroactivity limit of Padilla clarified by Teague framework)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new rules apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review or not yet final)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules)
State v. Gonzalez, 285 Neb. 940, 830 N.W.2d 504 (2013) (Nebraska precedent on withdrawal of plea and immigration consequences)
State v. Mata, 266 Neb. 668, 668 N.W.2d 448 (2003) (context for postconviction and related proceedings)
State v. Gales, 265 Neb. 598, 658 N.W.2d 604 (2003) (Nebraska postconviction/jurisdiction considerations)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (standard for jury consideration in capital sentencing; referenced in discussion of new rules)
State v. Lamb, 280 Neb. 738, 789 N.W.2d 918 (2010) (Nebraska case cited in comparative rule application)