Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Wisconsin SC on Padilla, IAC - Wisc. v. Ortiz-Mondragon; Wisc. v. Shata

July 09, 2015 (1 min read)

"We conclude that Ortiz-Mondragon is not entitled to withdraw his no-contest plea to substantial battery because he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.  Specifically, his trial counsel did not perform deficiently.  Because federal immigration law is not "succinct, clear, and explicit" in providing that Ortiz-Mondragon's substantial battery constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, his attorney "need[ed] [to] do no more than advise [him] that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences."  See Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369.  Ortiz-Mondragon's trial attorney satisfied that requirement by conveying the information contained in the plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form —— namely, that Ortiz-Mondragon's "plea could result in deportation, the exclusion of admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law."  Counsel's advice was correct, not deficient, and was consistent with Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) (2011-12)." - Wisc. v. Ortiz-Mondragon, July 9, 2015.

"We conclude that Shata is not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.  Specifically, Shata's attorney did not perform deficiently.  Shata's attorney was required to "give correct advice" to Shata about the possible immigration consequences of his conviction.  Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369.  Shata's attorney satisfied that requirement by correctly advising Shata that his guilty plea carried a "strong chance" of deportation.  Shata's attorney was not required to tell him that his guilty plea would absolutely result in deportation.  In fact, Shata's deportation was not an absolute certainty. Executive action, including the United States Department of Homeland Security's exercise of prosecutorial discretion, can block the deportation of deportable aliens.  Because Shata's trial counsel did not perform deficiently, we do not address the issue of prejudice." - Wisc. v. Shata, July 9, 2015.