State v. Sandoval

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a writ of error coram nobis cannot be used to set aside a plea-based conviction based on the court's failure to advise the defendant of immigration consequences. The court explained that coram nobis addresses qualifying errors of fact, not errors of law, and that the statutory advisement omission does not prevent acceptance of a plea or entry of judgment. The judgment denying Jose Luis Sandoval's petition was affirmed.

Holdings

1. A writ of error coram nobis cannot be used to set aside a plea-based conviction on the ground that the court failed to advise the defendant of the immigration consequences of the plea.
2. Failure to give the advisement required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(1) does not prevent acceptance of a plea or entry of a judgment of conviction; instead, it may provide a basis for a later motion to vacate the judgment and withdraw the plea upon the statutory showing.
3. The asserted due process violation does not support issuance of a writ of error coram nobis because the claim concerns an alleged error of law rather than a qualifying error of fact.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a writ of error coram nobis may be used to set aside a plea-based conviction because the court failed to advise the defendant of the immigration consequences of the plea.
2. Whether the failure to provide the statutory immigration-consequences advisement prevents acceptance of the plea or entry of judgment.
3. Whether the alleged failure to provide the advisement constitutes an error of fact or a due process violation cognizable through coram nobis.

Disposition

affirmed