By: Derek Hawkins//July 15, 2015//
By: Derek Hawkins//July 15, 2015//
Criminal
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Pleas & Sentencing – Motion to Withdraw Plea – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
2013-AP-2435-CR State of Wisconsin v. Fernando Ortiz-Mandragon
Trial counsel’s indication that a plea could result in deportation was sufficient to advise client of adverse immigration consequences.
“[T]he immigration advice that Attorney Singh provided to Ortiz-Mondragon was sufficient under Padilla. Because the law is not “succinct, clear, and explicit” with respect to whether Ortiz-Mondragon’s substantial battery was a crime involving moral turpitude, his trial counsel “need[ed] [to] do no more than advise [him] that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” See Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369 (emphases added). Counsel met that requirement by advising Ortiz-Mondragon that the “plea could result in deportation, the exclusion of admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law.” See Garcia, 425 S.W.3d at 260-61 (holding that, because the defendant’s crimes did not clearly qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude, counsel gave adequate advice by stating that the guilty pleas “might or might not have an adverse [e]ffect on his ability to return legally to the United States”); Lopez-Penaloza, 804 N.W.2d at 546 (holding that, because the defendant’s crime did not clearly qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude, counsel gave adequate advice by stating “‘that a criminal conviction, deferred judgment, or deferred sentence may affect [her] status under federal immigration laws'”).”
ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.
Dissenting: BRADLEY, ABRAHAMSON, J.J., dissent. (Opinion Filed.)