Facts: Prior to petitioner Valentin Sandoval’s release from prison after serving a sentence for third degree rape, United States Customs and Border Protection placed a hold that prevented him from being released and initiated deportation proceedings against him on grounds that, as a resident alien who had committed an aggravated felony, he was deportable under 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Sandoval subsequently filed a personal restraint petition in the Washington Court of Appeals that asserted that his plea of guilty to the charge of third degree rape had not been knowing, voluntary, and intelligent insofar as he had been provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §22 of the Washington State Constitution when his attorney failed to properly apprise him of the likely consequences of his guilty plea with regard to his immigration status. The Washington Court of Appeals dismissed Sandoval’s petition and affirmed his conviction. Sandoval appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Did the erroneous advice of Sandoval’s attorney regarding the likelihood of Sandoval’s guilty plea resulting in his deportation fail to meet the minimal constitutional standard of competence?
If not, did the erroneous advice prejudice Sandoval?
Conclusion: Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for the Court reversed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that Sandoval had been provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that as a result his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent insofar as Sandoval’s attorney had offered Sandoval relatively categorical assurances that he would not be deported when in fact it was clear that his deportation was likely if he pled guilty. The Court also held that this ineffective assistance of counsel had prejudiced Sandoval as there is a reasonable probability that Sandoval would not have pled guilty and would have instead elected to go to trial had he been properly apprised of the likely consequences of a guilty plea for his immigration status. Thus, the Court vacated Sandoval’s conviction and remanded the case to the trial court.
Docket No. 82175-5
Petitioner: Valentin Sandoval
(Counsel: Nancy P. Collins)
Respondent: State of Washington
(Counsel: Douglas Robert Mitchell)
Briefs:
- ACLU Amicus
- Amicus of Wda, Et Al
- Appellant Brief
- Petition for Review
- Petitioner's Supplemental Brief
- Petitioner's Supplemental Brief Addressing Padilla vs Kentucky
- Reply
- Respondent Brief
- Respondent's Supplemental Statement of Auth
- Respondents Supplemental Brief
- Respondents Supplemental Brief Dated 5-3-10
- Respondents Supplemental Brief Dated 6-1-10
- Statement of Additional Authority By WAPA
- Statement of Additional Authority Dated 6-8-10
- Statement of Additional Grounds
- WAPA Amicus
- Wda Supplemental Amicus Addressing Padilla vs Kentucky
Argument: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, March 17th, 2011
Prevailing Party: Valentin Sandoval (Petitioner)
Vote: 9-0
Citation: Pending
Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)
Madsen
Johnson
Alexander
Sanders
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
(Majority)
Johnson
(Concurs)
Stephens
(Concurs)
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.