Alvarado-Riera v. State, A16-0574

• Decision Date: 09 January 2017
• Docket Number: A16-0574
• Parties: Denis Alcivar Alvarado-Riera, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Denis Alcivar Alvarado-Riera, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

A16-0574

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

January 9, 2017

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

Affirmed

Schellhas, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 27-CR-14-17543

David L. Wilson, Anne Carlson, Wilson Law Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Cheri A. Townsend, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Muehlberg, Judge.^*

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SCHELLHAS, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his postconviction petition to withdraw his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Denis Alvarado-Riera was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1998. In April 2014, ICE agents apprehended Alvarado-Riera on a removal order because Alvarado-Riera had been convicted of domestic assault, but an immigration judge canceled the removal order on June 11, 2014. On June 10, respondent State of Minnesota charged Alvarado-Riera by complaint with check forgery committed on or about November 8, 2013, under Minnesota Statutes section 609.631, subdivision 2(1) (2012).

On June 23, 2014, Alvarado-Riera voluntarily admitted himself to Abbot Northwestern Hospital for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. He spent three days in the hospital, was treated with medication, and was discharged with a treatment plan. On November 24, Alvarado-Riera pleaded guilty to felony check forgery. In connection with his plea, he offered to the district court a plea petition in which he represented that he had been a patient in a mental hospital and had talked with, or been treated by, a psychiatrist for a nervous or mental-health condition. "Depression" is handwritten next to that disclosure. Alvarado-Riera also represented that he had not been ill recently but was taking pills or other medicine at the time of his plea. "Wellbutrin" is handwritten next to that representation. And the plea petition contains the following language:

I understand that pursuant to federal law that if I am not a citizen of the United States, this guilty plea may result in my removal from the United States and/or stop me from being able to legally enter or re-enter the United States; that the immigration consequences to me, if any, are not necessarily the same as they would be to anyone else; and that if I am not a citizen, I have the right to seek individualized advice from an attorney about the effect your guilty plea will have on your immigration status.

At the plea hearing on November 24, 2014, Alvarado-Riera's counsel questioned him about his mental illness and medication as follows:

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Now, we had some discussions about how you have been previously diagnosed with some mental illness, is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And you have been hospitalized for that in the past, is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: You are currently under medication, is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

DEFENSE COUNEL: Now, is that in any way, shape or form affecting your understanding of your rights, the trial and the evidence or anything like that?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: So you understand what's going on here?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

And the prosecutor engaged in the following colloquy with Alvarado-Riera:

THE PROSECUTOR: Sir, it is not my intention to intrude in any conversations that you and your counsel have had, but do you understand - and you may recall that the petition you filled out talks about that there could be - if you are not a citizen of the United States, there could be immigration consequences to the act of pleading guilty today.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE PROSECUTOR: Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE PROSECUTOR: And you understand that this may well be a triggering event for Homeland Security or ICE to have a look at your immigration status, and you have talked to your attorney and feel fully informed about that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE PROSECUTOR: You have gone over that and - I am not prying as to what the advice was, but you know and understand and have talked about those risks?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE PROSECUTOR: That this, you know, could trigger deportation proceedings?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I am actually already in the process for a domestic.

THE PROSECUTOR: Okay.

THE DEFENDANT: So I understand.

THE PROSECUTOR: You understand the risk -

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE PROSECUTOR: - by - that you are taking today?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

Alvarado-Riera stated to the district court, "I just don't want to lose my right being here and losing my family, you know." The court accepted Alvarado-Riera's guilty plea to felony check forgery, stayed imposition of sentence, credited Alvarado-Riera for 24 days served, and placed him on supervised probation for two years.

On December 8, 2015, the United States Department of Homeland Security arrested Alvarado-Riera because he had been convicted of two crimes (domestic assault and felony check forgery) involving moral turpitude that did not arise out of a single scheme of criminal conduct. On January 7, 2016, Alvarado-Riera petitioned the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that his plea was involuntary and unintelligent due to his mental illness and that his counsel was ineffective for failing toadvise him that he definitely would be deported for a guilty plea to felony check forgery. The district court denied the postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing.

This appeal follows.

DECISION

Denial of evidentiary hearing

Alvarado-Riera argues that the district court erred by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition. The court concluded that resolution of the claims in Alvarado-Riera's postconviction petition did not require an evidentiary hearing. The court reasoned that Alvarado-Riera made no claim of newly discovered evidence and that the parties relied on the same set of facts contained in the plea-hearing transcript and did not dispute the material facts.

Appellate courts review a denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. Morrow v. State, 886 N.W.2d 204, 206 (Minn. 2016). "A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted); see also Colbert v. State, 870 N.W2d 616, 621 (Minn. 2015). "[Appellate courts] review the postconviction court's underlying factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo." Morrow, 886 N.W.2d at 206.

"A postconviction court may deny a petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing if the petition, files, and records in the proceeding conclusively establish that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2014)). "[T]he postconviction court must grant [an] evidentiary hearingwhenever material facts are in dispute." State v. Vang, 881 N.W.2d 551, 557 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). "But the postconviction court need not hold an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief." Id. (quotation omitted). "Any doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the defendant seeking relief." State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493, 504 (Minn. 2013).

Claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel

Alvarado-Riera argues that his trial counsel's performance fell below the objective standard of reasonableness, as explained in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), and that the district court erred by resolving his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires attorneys to tell their noncitizen clients if their pleas carry a risk of deportation. Padilla, 559 U.S. at 374, 130 S. Ct. at 1486. "An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is an alleged violation of the right to reasonably effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution." State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823, 842 (Minn. 2003). "Ineffective assistance of counsel renders a guilty plea involuntary and unintelligent." Sanchez v. State, 868 N.W.2d 282, 286 (Minn. App. 2015), review granted (Minn. Oct. 28, 2015).

An evidentiary hearing is required on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim when, "a defendant . . . allege[s] facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, . . . satisfy the two requirements from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984)." Morrow, 886 N.W.2d at 206. First, petitioner must show that"counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Vang, 881 N.W.2d at 557 (quotation omitted). Second, petitioner must prove that "there [is] a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. (quotation omitted). "[This court] need not address both prongs . . . if one is determinative." Id. (quotation omitted). A petitioner "has the burden of proof" to overcome the "strong presumption that counsel's performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance." Gail v. State, 732 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Minn. 2007). "The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances." State v. Vang, 847 N.W.2d 248, 266-67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted). "[A]pplication of...