State v. Hernandez-Galarza
Decision Date | 22 May 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 13–0917.,13–0917. |
Citation | 864 N.W.2d 122 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Victor HERNANDEZ–GALARZA, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Benjamin D. Bergmann of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble & Gentry LLP, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin R. Cmelik and Alexandra Link, Assistant Attorneys General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Kevin D. Hathaway, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Victor Hernandez–Galarza appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He maintains he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution due to counsel's failure to adequately inform him of adverse immigration consequences resulting from his guilty plea to the charge of fraudulent practice in the fourth degree. See Iowa Code § 714.12 (2011). He asserts that at the time he entered his guilty plea he was “subject to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ (ICE) ] detainer,” he is now “subject to deportation proceedings,” and because of his guilty plea he is “ineligible for cancelation of removal” proceedings under federal immigration law. He claims that absent counsel's deficient advice, he would not have pled guilty to the charge of fraudulent practice in the fourth degree.
The district court summarily denied Hernandez–Galarza's habeas petition. Hernandez–Galarza appealed, and we transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the district court judgment. Hernandez–Galarza applied for further review, which we granted. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude the district court properly denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals and the judgment of the district court.
On August 2, 2011, Hernandez–Galarza approached Polk County Investigator Don Sharr. Hernandez–Galarza informed Investigator Sharr he was “willing to turn himself into the Department of Transportation for using a false social security number to title vehicles in Iowa.” Upon further investigation, Investigator Sharr discovered Hernandez–Galarza had used a false social security number to apply for certificates of title for three separate vehicles. However, because of his “willingness to surrender,” Investigator Sharr agreed to charge Hernandez–Galarza with only one count of fraudulent practice in the third degree in violation of Iowa Code section 714.11(3) and one count of fraudulent applications in violation of Iowa Code section 321.97. Thereafter, Hernandez–Galarza signed a written statement admitting that “[o]n or about July 26, 2010, ... [he] used a false social security number to apply ... for [a] certificate of title for a motor vehicle.”
On August 10, 2011, law enforcement filed a preliminary complaint charging Hernandez–Galarza with one count of fraudulent practice in the third degree and one count of fraudulent applications for “falsely us[ing] a social security number not assigned to [him] to make a false application for an [I]owa certificate of title.” The State filed a trial information charging Hernandez–Galarza with one count of fraudulent applications. See Iowa Code § 321.97. The State later orally amended the trial information to charge Hernandez–Galarza with one count of fraudulent practice in the third degree. See id. § 714.11(3).
On October 21, Hernandez–Galarza entered a written guilty plea to the reduced charge of fraudulent practice in the fourth degree in violation of Iowa Code section 714.12. Contained within the written guilty plea was the following bolded paragraph: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States that a criminal conviction or deferred judgment may result in deportation or other adverse immigration consequences under federal immigration laws.” Both Hernandez–Galarza and his attorney signed and acknowledged this written guilty plea. In its sentencing order, the district court granted Hernandez–Galarza a deferred judgment. It also placed him on probation for a period of one year, supervised by the Iowa Department of Corrections (DOC).
On February 14, 2012, the district court entered a probation discharge order. The district court ordered that the “defendant is hereby discharged from probation” and “the Court's criminal records with reference to the [defendant's] deferred judgment shall be expunged.”
On March 12, 2013, Hernandez–Galarza filed the subject “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, or in the alternative, Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis” in district court. In the petition, he alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution. This claim is based on counsel's alleged failure to adequately inform him of adverse immigration consequences resulting from his guilty plea to the charge of fraudulent practice in the fourth degree and the corresponding deferred judgment. Specifically, Hernandez–Galarza maintained that at the time he entered his guilty plea he was “subject to a[n] ... [ICE] detainer,” he is now “subject to deportation proceedings,” and because of his guilty plea he is “ineligible for cancelation of removal” proceedings under federal immigration law as he no longer qualifies for the petty-offense exception codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (2012).1 Hernandez–Galarza claims that absent counsel's deficient advice, he would not have pled guilty to the charge of fraudulent practice in the fourth degree.
With respect to his habeas petition, Hernandez–Galarza pled the following facts:
Hernandez–Galarza appealed, and we transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals determined the habeas petition failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Iowa Code section 663.1(1) by failing to specify how, where, or by whom Hernandez–Galarza was detained. The court of appeals also noted that Hernandez–Galarza was no longer arguably in the custody of the State of Iowa because any alleged sentence had expired. Accordingly, he could no longer challenge his state deferred judgment by a writ of habeas corpus.
Hernandez–Galarza applied for further review, which we granted.
Habeas corpus proceedings are actions at law and are generally reviewable for corrections of errors at law. See Iowa R.App. P. 6.907 ; Cummings v. Lainson, 239 Iowa 1193, 1196, 33 N.W.2d 395, 397 (1948) (). However, we review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Daughenbaugh v. State, 805 N.W.2d 591, 593 (Iowa 2011).
Id. (citations omitted).
Further, recent developments in the law regarding a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel recognize that lawyers representing criminal defendants must advise their clients whether their pleas carry a risk of deportation. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374–75, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1486, 176 L.Ed.2d 284, 298–99 (2010). In Padilla, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant who pled guilty to drug charges received constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel when his lawyer failed to advise him of a serious consequence—deportation—that would automatically occur because of his conviction. Id. at 359, 373–75, 130 S.Ct. at 1478, 1486–87, 176 L.Ed.2d at 290, 298–99.
This case presents a clear example of the impact collateral consequences may have on criminal proceedings. Hernandez–Galarza pled guilty to the charge of fraudulent practice in the fourth degree believing he would receive a deferred judgment, and that upon satisfying his one-year term of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Escamilla v. Superintendent
...say that defendant's possible deportation” satisfies the custody requirement of the Illinois habeas statute); State v. Hernandez–Galarza, 864 N.W.2d 122, 135 (Iowa 2015) (holding that even if immigration detention “may be factually traceable to ... state criminal proceedings [the] restraint......
-
Ruiz v. State
...an expansion of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, given the devastating immigration consequences that counsel's advice will have for Hernandez Ruiz. This raises the possibility that any article I, section 10 claim, although preserved in the district court, has been waived on appeal. The......
-
Escamilla v. Superintendent
...say that defendant's possible deportation" satisfies the custody requirement of the Illinois habeas statute); State v. Hernandez-Galarza, 864 N.W.2d 122, 135 (Iowa 2015) (holding that even if immigration detention "may be factually traceable to . . . state criminal proceedings [the] restrai......
-
Ruthers v. State
...judgment. Constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a jurisdictional defect and is reviewable by habeas corpus. Id. at 127-28 (internal citations omitted). respondent to a petition alleging the person to be a[n] [SVP] shall be entitled to the assistance of counsel . . .......