State v. Sanmartin Prado

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that defense counsel did not provide constitutionally deficient advice under Padilla v. Kentucky where counsel advised the defendant that his conviction was a deportable or possibly deportable offense and that there could and probably would be immigration consequences. The court concluded that this advice correctly conveyed the risk of deportation before the defendant proceeded by a plea of not guilty on an agreed statement of facts. The case arose from a petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging a conviction for second-degree child abuse.

Holdings

1. A plea of not guilty by way of an agreed statement of facts may be treated as the functional equivalent of a guilty plea for purposes of immigration-consequences advisements when the circumstances show that conviction is effectively certain and the proceeding is not a contested trial.
2. Counsel's advice was not constitutionally deficient where counsel advised the noncitizen defendant before the proceeding that the offense was deportable, that he could be deported if the federal government initiated proceedings, and that there could and probably would be immigration consequences.
3. Sanmartin Prado failed to establish deficient performance under the first prong of Strickland, so he was not entitled to coram nobis relief on his ineffective-assistance claim.
4. Counsel's advisements satisfied Maryland Rule 4-242(f) because the defendant was advised that the conviction could result in deportation and other immigration consequences.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a plea of not guilty by way of an agreed statement of facts was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea for purposes of advising a noncitizen defendant about immigration consequences.
2. Whether defense counsel's advice that second-degree child abuse was a deportable offense, that the defendant could be deported if the federal government initiated proceedings, and that there could and probably would be immigration consequences constituted constitutionally deficient performance under Padilla v. Kentucky and Strickland v. Washington.
3. Whether counsel's advice complied with Maryland Rule 4-242(f)'s collateral-consequences advisement requirement.
4. Whether Sanmartin Prado was entitled to coram nobis relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

reversed