State v. Rodriguez-Torres

275 Neb. 363 (2008) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · April 4, 2008 · No. No. S-06-1351

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion filed years after sentencing seeking to withdraw guilty pleas and vacate convictions based on the failure to provide immigration-consequence advisements. Because no legislatively authorized procedure allowed such relief after the defendant had completed his sentences, the court remanded with directions to dismiss the motion.

Court
Supreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
McCORMACK; HEAVICAN, C.J.; WRIGHT; CONNOLLY; GERRARD; STEPHAN; MILLER-LERMAN
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
April 4, 2008
Docket number
No. S-06-1351
Procedural posture
Appeal from denial of motion to vacate judgment and allow withdrawal of guilty pleas
Standard of review
Jurisdictional questions and statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo as matters of law.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Daniel T. Rodriguez-Torres v. State of Nebraska
Disposition
remanded

Topics

criminal procedurepost-conviction reliefstatutory interpretationappellate procedureimmigration

Practice areas

Criminal lawPost-conviction reliefImmigration

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to vacate judgment and allow withdrawal of guilty pleas after the defendant completed his sentences, based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02.

Holdings

  1. A court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion to vacate judgment and allow withdrawal of guilty pleas when the defendant has already completed his sentence, because Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02 does not confer jurisdiction for such post-sentence motions, and no other statutory procedure authorizes such relief.

Key quotations

IF YOU ARE NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT CONVICTION OF THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED MAY HAVE THE CONSEQUENCES OF REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES, OR DENIAL OF NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. (at 363)
The Legislature has not enacted a procedure for asserting second-tier challenges to prior plea-based DUI convictions, and thus, unless such a procedure is constitutionally mandated, it `is unauthorized and, therefore, unavailable under Nebraska criminal procedure.' (at 365)

Factual background

In January 1997, Rodriguez-Torres pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, a Class IV felony, and was sentenced to 2 years' supervised probation. He was later charged with possession and violation of probation, pled guilty to violation of probation, and was sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment. He did not appeal. In 2006, he filed a motion to vacate judgment and withdraw guilty pleas, alleging he was not advised of immigration consequences and that his attorney was ineffective. The district court denied the motion, finding no good or sufficient reasons for withdrawal.

Procedural history

Rodriguez-Torres pled guilty in 1997 and 1999, was sentenced, served his sentences, and did not appeal. In 2006 he filed a motion to vacate judgment and withdraw guilty pleas, which the district court denied. He appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court moved the appeal to its docket.

Remand instructions

Dismiss Rodriguez-Torres' motion to vacate judgment and allow withdrawal of guilty pleas.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…