Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviews the denial of Eddy Guerrero’s application for post-conviction relief following his nolo contendere plea to possession of more than one kilogram of cocaine. Guerrero alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on the absence of an interpreter, inadequate explanation of the offense and plea, insufficient attorney-client communication, inadequate preparation for the suppression hearing, and failure to address prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The court affirmed, concluding that Guerrero failed to establish deficient performance.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain a Spanish-English interpreter for the suppression hearing and plea proceedings.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise Guerrero adequately about the immigration consequences of his nolo contendere plea.
- Whether trial counsel failed to explain the essential elements of the charged offense, rendering the plea unintelligent or involuntary.
- Whether trial counsel inadequately investigated and prepared for the suppression hearing.
- Whether trial counsel's courthouse communications with Guerrero were insufficient to constitute meaningful attorney-client communication.
- Whether the hearing justice erred by failing to address the prejudice prong of Strickland.
Holdings
- The failure to obtain an interpreter did not constitute ineffective assistance because Guerrero failed to demonstrate actual, irremediable prejudice and the record supported the finding that he had sufficient comprehension of English.
- Trial counsel was not ineffective because counsel adequately advised Guerrero that entering a nolo contendere plea or being convicted would result in deportation.
- The hearing justice did not clearly err in finding that Guerrero's plea was intelligent and that counsel adequately addressed the plea proceedings and the nature of the charge.
- Counsel's investigation and preparation for the suppression hearing were constitutionally adequate.
- Counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by meeting Guerrero at the courthouse rather than visiting him at the correctional institution.
- Because Guerrero failed to establish deficient performance, the Court did not need to address the prejudice prong of Strickland.
Key quotations
“The sole focus of an application for post-conviction relief * * * is the nature of counsel’s advice concerning the plea and the voluntariness of the plea.” (47 A.3d at 300)
“Under the two-pronged standard enunciated in Strickland, an applicant must first demonstrate that “counsel’s performance was deficient, to the point that the errors were so serious that trial counsel did not function at the level guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.”” (47 A.3d at 300-301)
“The Court held that, consequently, in order “to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel[,] * * * counsel must inform her [or his] client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.”” (47 A.3d at 302)
Factual background
Guerrero was charged with possessing more than one kilogram of cocaine after Rhode Island State Police found more than three kilograms of cocaine in a console of the vehicle he was driving. After the Superior Court denied his motion to suppress, he pleaded nolo contendere and received a sentence of twenty years, with seven years to serve and thirteen years suspended with probation. Guerrero, who had immigration consequences arising from the plea, later sought post-conviction relief, asserting that counsel failed to obtain an interpreter, explain the offense and plea consequences, communicate meaningfully, investigate and prepare for the suppression hearing, and address prejudice under Strickland.
Procedural history
Guerrero pleaded nolo contendere in the Superior Court on April 19, 2006, after the court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a vehicle search. He received a twenty-year sentence, with seven years to serve and the balance suspended with probation. He filed an application for post-conviction relief on October 29, 2007, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not knowing and intelligent. After an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court denied relief, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Remand instructions
The record may be returned to the Superior Court.