State v. Flores-Arroyo
| Decision Date | 12 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | 36392-9-III |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JUAN MANUEL FLORES-ARROYO, Appellant. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Juan Flores-Arroyo appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the court erred in excluding evidence offered to attack his plea counsel's credibility. We affirm.
Mr Flores-Arroyo came to the United States on a tourist visa in 2013 and overstayed the visa limit. In 2017, he was charged in Chelan County with drive-by shooting, possession of methamphetamine, and alien in possession of a firearm. Mr Flores-Arroyo's family hired George Trejo to represent Mr. Flores-Arroyo. Mr. Trejo negotiated an agreement for Flores-Arroyo to plead guilty solely to drive-by shooting with a low end sentence recommendation. Mr. Trejo advised Mr Flores-Arroyo that immigration consequences were possible and that he likely would be deported if federal authorities commenced immigration proceedings. Mr. Flores-Arroyo acknowledged on the record that he could face immigration consequences from his plea. The court accepted the plea after verifying that it was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Immigration authorities commenced deportation proceedings after Mr Flores-Arroyo completed his sentence. An immigration judge determined that the drive-by shooting constituted a "particularly serious crime" for immigration purposes and ordered his deportation. Mr. Flores-Arroyo appealed the immigration decision.
While that appeal was underway, Mr. Flores-Arroyo also filed a CrR 7.8 motion to withdraw his guilty plea in Chelan County Superior Court. He argued that he received ineffective assistance of plea counsel because his attorney failed to adequately advise him about immigration consequences. He also asserted that he would have accepted a longer prison time in order to avoid deportation. The court conducted a hearing on the motion. Mr. Flores-Arroyo sought to call a past client of Mr. Trejo to testify that he had received incorrect immigration advice. The trial court found the testimony irrelevant to whether Mr. Flores-Arroyo received proper advice. The court also disallowed evidence of counsel's bar discipline history.
The trial court denied the CrR 7.8 motion because it found Mr. Flores-Arroyo was adequately advised about immigration consequences before entering his plea. The court further noted that, of the three charges Mr. Flores-Arroyo faced, the drive-by shooting charge carried the least certain immigration consequences. Mr. Trejo correctly advised his client that deportation was likely.
Mr. Flores-Arroyo timely appealed the trial court's denial of his motion. A panel considered his appeal without hearing argument.
The appeal presents two arguments. We first address whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea before turning to the contention that the court erred when it rejected impeachment evidence.
We review the trial court's decision whether to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. State v. Quy Dinh Nguyen, 179 Wn.App. 271, 281-282 319 P.3d 53 (2013). The trial court may allow withdrawal of a guilty plea to correct a manifest injustice, including ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 282.
A defendant who claims ineffective assistance must establish that counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial. State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163, 170, 249 P.3d 1015 (2011). Prejudice is established if the defendant can demonstrate that, but for counsel's errors, there was a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial rather than plead guilty. Id. at 174-175.
Defense counsel must advise a client about the consequences of pleading guilty. In re Ramos, 181 Wn.App. 743, 749-750, 326 P.3d 826 (2014). Counsel must provide accurate information about potential immigration ramifications, even though the relevant law is often unclear. Id. at 750-751. Subsequent to Padilla v. Kentucky[1], counsel must appropriately advise a client when federal law classifies the defendant's offense as clearly deportable. Id. at 751. If immigration consequences for the offense are not clear, counsel must provide a general warning that immigration consequences are possible. Id. at 752. Contradictory or wavering warnings about deportation are disfavored because they decrease the likelihood that a defendant will appreciate the potential consequences. State v. Manajares, 197 Wn.App. 798, 807, 391 P.3d 530 (2017).
Both parties acknowledge Washington's drive-by shooting offense does not have clear federal deportation consequences, while possession of methamphetamine and alien in possession of a firearm have clear negative consequences. Mr. Trejo correctly informed Mr. Flores-Arroyo that he could face immigration consequences, including possible deportation, if he chose to plead guilty to drive-by shooting. This advice was accurate and sufficient for an offense with unclear immigration consequences. Had Mr. Flores-Arroyo pleaded guilty to his other two offenses or been convicted for these offenses, his immigration consequences were likely far worse. While Mr. Flores-Arroyo now argues he would prefer to go to trial, he does not argue that he had any likelihood of success at trial. Conviction for any of his charged offenses would still carry immigration consequences regardless of his sentence duration.
Mr. Trejo gave his client accurate and adequate advice prior to pleading guilty. Counsel was not ineffective for negotiating a relatively favorable deal under the circumstances. Mr. Flores-Arroyo has not met his heavy burden of establishing that counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
To continue reading
Request your trial