Oseguera v. State

• Decision Date: 29 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. 20120018.,20120018.
• Citation: 766 Utah Adv. Rep. 26,332 P.3d 963
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: Ramiro OSEGUERA Jr., Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE of Utah, Respondent and Appellee.

332 P.3d 963

766 Utah Adv. Rep. 26

Ramiro OSEGUERA Jr., Petitioner and Appellant,

v.STATE of Utah, Respondent and Appellee.

No. 20120018.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 29, 2014.

Hakeem Ishola, Jonathan Benson, Aaron Tarin, Carlos Navarro, West Valley City, for appellant.

Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Ryan D. Tenney, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for appellee.

Associate Chief Justice NEHRING authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice DURRANT, Justice DURHAM, Justice PARRISH, and Justice LEE joined.

Associate Chief Justice NEHRING, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 Mr. Ramiro Oseguera–Garcia Jr. (Mr. Oseguera) ¹ was a lawful permanent resident of the United States when he pleaded guilty to felony theft in January 2002. In 2010, Mr. Oseguera was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Mr. Oseguera's 2002 felony theft conviction. Mr. Oseguera filed for relief under the Utah Post–Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to theft. Mr. Oseguera claimed his counsel was ineffective during the plea process because counsel failed to disclose the possible immigration consequences of Mr. Oseguera's plea. In the alternative, Mr. Oseguera sought relief through a writ of coram nobis. After a hearing and argument, the district court dismissed Mr. Oseguera's petition and writ of coram nobis upon determining that (1) Mr. Oseguera's petition was time barred by the PCRA and (2) he was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Mr. Oseguera appealed, and the Utah Court of Appeals certified the appeal to this court. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Mr. Oseguera's PCRA petition and writ of coram nobis.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Mr. Oseguera was born in Mexico in November 1972. He entered the United States in June 1978 and became a lawful permanent resident of the United States on January 9, 1989. In November 2001, Mr. Oseguera was employed as a clerk at a gas station. On November 18, 2001, the station manager phoned local police and reported that a regular customer had left her purse on the counter and the purse was not in the station's lost and found. The South Ogden Police Department was dispatched to the station to investigate the possible theft of the purse. The manager phoned Mr. Oseguera, who was the clerk working at the time the customer left her purse, to ask about the missing purse. Mr. Oseguera responded that he had not seen the purse. The station manager and the South Ogden police officer reviewed the surveillance camera footage for the interval between when the purse was left and when the purse disappeared. The video showed the customer leave her purse on the counter, another customer hand the purse to Mr. Oseguera, and Mr. Oseguera place the purse behind the counter. The video also revealed that some time later, Mr. Oseguera put on his coat, walked to the location of the purse, then walked away, and thereafter, the purse was gone. After viewing the video tape, the station manager phoned Mr. Oseguera again and asked him to return to the gas station. When Mr. Oseguera returned, he was asked again about the purse. Mr. Oseguera claimed he did not know what happened to the purse and denied taking it, but then stated that he could not “afford to be in any more trouble” because he was on probation and had a scholarship at Weber State University. Mr. Oseguera offered to reimburse the victim any money that may have been lost in order to “solve the problem.” The officer arrested Mr. Oseguera and booked him into Weber County jail on a charge of theft.

¶ 3 Due to prior theft convictions, Mr. Oseguera was charged with one count of third-degree felony theft under Utah Code sections 76–6–404 and –412(1)(b)(ii). Mr. Oseguera had previously been convicted of retail theft on May 3, 2000, theft on July 12, 2000, and retail theft on September 1, 2000—all three crimes were class B misdemeanors. Mr. Oseguera was ordered to serve eighteen months probation for these theft charges and was still on probation when he committed the theft of the purse on November 18, 2001.

¶ 4 Mr. Oseguera hired Mr. Daniel Drage to represent him in the November 2001 theft charge. On January 22, 2002, Mr. Oseguera pleaded guilty as charged. In exchange for his plea, the State agreed not to oppose a “402(b) reduction” upon the completion of probation and to “defer to [Adult Probation and Parole's] recommendation” at the time of Mr. Oseguera's sentencing. On March 7, 2002, Mr. Oseguera was sentenced to sixty days in jail, to be followed by probation.

¶ 5 Over eight years later, in September 2010, federal immigration officials began deportation proceedings against Mr. Oseguera based in part on his January 2002 plea.² On March 22, 2011, Mr. Oseguera filed a petition asking the district court to vacate his January 2002 plea under the PCRA or, alternatively, through a writ of coram nobis. In his petition and accompanying affidavit, Mr. Oseguera asserted he was denied effective assistance of counsel during the plea process because he was never informed of potential immigration consequences related to his plea.

¶ 6 The State moved for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Mr. Oseguera's claims were time barred and (2) Mr. Oseguera's claims failed as a matter of law. The district court denied the State's motion, concluding that issues of fact existed regarding the timeliness of Mr. Oseguera's claims. The district court held a hearing, during which it received exhibits and heard testimony from Mr. Oseguera and Mr. Drage to resolve the time bar issue. At the hearing, Mr. Oseguera testified that he and Mr. Drage spoke regarding the possible consequences of a plea deal and he learned that the plea may lead to his deportation. Following the hearing, the district court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court found that Mr. Oseguera's testimony did not match his affidavit, in which he stated he was never informed of potential immigration consequences. Rather, the district court found that Mr. Oseguera and his attorney “did discuss deportation, [and] that [Mr.] Oseguera was advised the plea could lead to deportation.”

¶ 7 The district court concluded Mr. Oseguera knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable diligence that there were potential immigration consequences related to his plea. The district court further concluded that because Mr. Oseguera was aware of the evidentiary facts underlying his PCRA petition during the 2002 plea discussions,the time for filing his post-conviction action began running at his March 2002 sentencing and thus expired before he filed his post-conviction petition. Although unnecessary, the district court also concluded that Mr. Oseguera did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly in light of the complexities of immigration law. The district court denied Mr. Oseguera's PCRA petition and his request for a writ of coram nobis.

¶ 8 Mr. Oseguera appealed the district court's denial of relief to the Utah Court of Appeals. The court of appeals heard oral argument on the matter and later certified the appeal to this court. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under Utah Code section 78A–3–102(3)(b).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9 “On appeal from a ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief, we review the post-conviction court's legal conclusions for correctness,” granting no deference to the district court.³ We review the district court's factual findings for clear error.⁴ Additionally, “an appellant must properly preserve an issue in the district court before it will be reviewed on appeal.” ⁵

ANALYSIS

I. MR. OSEGUERA FAILED TO PRESERVE HIS ARGUMENT THAT HIS ATTORNEY AFFIRMATIVELY MISREPRESENTED THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA

¶ 10 “As a general rule, claims not raised before the [district] court may not be raised on appeal.” ⁶ This preservation rule serves two policy aims: (1) it enhances efficiency and fairness and (2) it “generally assure[s] that most claims are raised and resolved in the first instance by the original trial court.” ⁷ To serve these policies, we have held that the preservation rule applies to every claim, including constitutional questions.⁸ “An issue is preserved for appeal when it has been presented to the district court in such a way that the court has an opportunity to rule on [it].” ⁹ “In determining whether the district court had an opportunity to rule on an issue, a court considers three factors: (1) whether the issue was raised in a timely fashion, (2) whether the issue was specifically raised, and (3) whether supporting evidence or relevant authority was introduced.” ¹⁰ A party cannot circumvent our preservation rules by merely mentioning an issue without analyzing supporting evidence or relevant legal authority.¹¹ Additionally, a party that makes an objection based on one ground does not preserve any alternative grounds for objection for appeal.¹²

¶ 11 Mr. Oseguera filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on the claim that he was denied the assistance of effective counsel during his 2002 plea for felony theft because his attorney told him there would be “no immigration consequences” as a result of his plea. Mr. Oseguera submitted an affidavit in support of his post-conviction relief petition, in which he stated he was concerned that the felony theft charge would affect his immigration status and that his attorney did not tell him of the immigration consequences of the plea agreement.

¶ 12 On appeal, however, Mr. Oseguera argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney made affirmative misstatements regarding the immigration consequences of his plea agreement. This argument is necessarily premised on our caselaw as it existed before the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Padilla v. Kentucky,¹³ because Padilla does not apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions became final prior to the decision.¹⁴ Mr. Oseguera's conviction became...