State v. Garcia

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Alejandro Garcia’s motion to withdraw a no contest plea under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02. The court held that the statute permits withdrawal only when the trial court failed to provide all or part of the required immigration advisement and the defendant faces an unadvised immigration consequence; an alleged translation error does not independently satisfy the statute. The court also reaffirmed that trial courts may consider such motions even after the defendant has completed the sentence.

Holdings

1. Section 29-1819.02(2) authorizes a trial court to consider a motion to withdraw a qualifying guilty or no contest plea regardless of whether the defendant has completed the sentence.
2. A defendant may withdraw a guilty or no contest plea under § 29-1819.02(2) only by showing that the court failed to give all or part of the required advisement and that the defendant faces an immigration consequence not included in the advisement. The statute does not authorize withdrawal based solely on an alleged inadequacy in the translation of an advisement that the court gave.
3. The court did not decide whether the alleged translation error violated due process because Garcia's motion did not allege a due process violation or seek withdrawal on that basis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a trial court may entertain a motion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(2) after the defendant has completed the sentence associated with the plea.
2. Whether § 29-1819.02(2) authorizes withdrawal of a guilty or no contest plea when the court gave the required immigration advisement but the defendant alleges an error in the translation of that advisement.
3. Whether Garcia's motion presented a due process claim based on the alleged translation error.

Disposition

affirmed