v. People, 2020 CO 8

Alfredo Juarez, a Mexican national and lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in April 2012 to one class 1 misdemeanor count of possession of a schedule V controlled substance in exchange for dismissal of a felony charge and received drug‑court probation.
Before taking the plea, defense counsel obtained continuances to consult immigration counsel, spoke with immigration attorneys, provided Juarez names of immigration specialists, and advised Juarez that the misdemeanor would be treated as a deportable offense under federal law.
Juarez later violated probation; ICE initiated removal proceedings and Juarez was ultimately deported to Mexico.
Juarez filed postconviction motions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration advice and that his plea was therefore constitutionally invalid. A district court conducted evidentiary hearings and denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, holding counsel’s advice that the plea would make Juarez “deportable” correctly stated the controlling law under Padilla and therefore did not fail the objective Strickland standard; the court did not need to resolve prejudice because Juarez conceded he understood he would be deportable.

Issue	Juarez (Plaintiff) Argument	People (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s immigration advice was constitutionally deficient under Padilla/Strickland	Counsel failed to give the required "correct advice" — did not tell Juarez he would be automatically/presumptively deportable; instead gave only that deportation was "probable" or "could" occur	Counsel properly informed Juarez that the plea would make him deportable and sought immigration input; that statement correctly conveyed the controlling law	Court: Counsel’s advice that the plea would make Juarez "deportable" correctly stated the law under Padilla and met the objective reasonableness standard; no deficient performance.
Whether any deficient advice prejudiced Juarez (buttressing relief)	Had Juarez been correctly advised he would be automatically deportable, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have proceeded to trial	Even assuming some understatement, the record shows Juarez knew deportation was likely and accepted the plea anyway; no reasonable probability he would have refused the plea	Court: Because Juarez conceded he understood he would be deportable and accepted the plea despite that knowledge, prejudice was not established; judgment affirmed.

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (Sup. Ct.) (guilty plea must be voluntary and made with understanding of direct consequences)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct.) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Sup. Ct.) (Strickland applied to guilty‑plea challenges)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct.) (counsel must inform client whether a plea carries a risk of deportation; clear statutes require correct advice)
People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523 (Colo. 1987) (attorneys must investigate material legal principles affecting noncitizen clients; remand where record inadequate)
People v. Birdsong, 958 P.2d 1124 (Colo. 1998) (trial court must advise defendant of direct consequences to ensure plea is knowing and voluntary)