IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18

- 1072 Filed May 13, 2020

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. AWADIA MAJAK DENG , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly , District Associate Judge.

A defendant appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana.
AFFIRMED.

Joel E. Fenton of Law Offices of Joel E. Fenton, PLC , West Des Moines , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J. , and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.2

TABOR , Presiding Judge

. Awadia Deng challenges her conviction for marijuana possession . She alleges her attorney was ineffective in advising her about the immigration consequences of her guilty plea. Because the record is inadequate to resolve her ineffective

- assistance claim on direct appeal , we affirm her conviction but preserve her clai m for possible postconviction

- relief (PCR) proceedings

. The Polk County Attorney charged Deng with possession of marijuana in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2017 ). The cha rge came after dispatch sent police officers to investigate a domestic dispute in October 2017 . A caller reported her mother had locked her out of the house. When they arrived, officers found Deng in the kitchen holding a mar ijuana grinder. The officers told her it was illegal to possess drug paraphernalia. Deng and her mother grew “agitated” in response to the officers’ questions about the reason for the 911 call. When the officers suggested Deng leave the home for the evening, she said , “[J] ust arres t me.” Their search incident to that arrest recovered a small baggie of marijuana in Deng’s purse. In May 2018 , Deng signed a written guilty plea. As part of the bargain, Deng agreed to a ten

- day jail sentence. In return, the State agreed to dismiss se veral other misdemeanor charges. The plea form included this italicized acknowledgment: “ I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, a criminal conviction or deferred judgment may result in deportation and affect re

e ntry into the United States or have other adverse immigration consequences under federal immigration laws

. ” The form also advised Deng that if she did not3

move in arrest of judgment within the applicable time frame she would waiv e her right to challenge her guilty plea on ap peal

. The court accepted her guilty plea at an in

- person hearing. At the hearing, the court asked Deng is she was a citizen of the United States. Defense counsel responded, “ [O] ur office policy is if there are any immigration consequences for a
certai n client, we get an immigration consult. If there are any immigration consequences for M [s.] Deng, they would have been reviewed thoroughly. ” The
court then told Deng, “ Even the best immigration expert cannot predict what might happen in the future that could [a] ffect anyone that has immigration consequences. Do you understand that?” Deng said she understood. Deng did not move in arrest of judgment to challenge her guilty plea. In June 2018, t he court imposed the a greed

- upon ten

- day jail sentence. On appeal, Deng complains she did not receive the necessary information about the immigration consequences of her guilty plea. She cites Padilla v. Kentucky

, 559 U.S. 356, 368 (2010) , and Diaz v. State , 896 N.W.2d 723, 7 29 (Iowa 2017) , for the proposition that criminal defense attorneys must advise their clients how pleading guilty may affect their immigration status

. At the outset, Deng contends the district court failed to warn her of the consequences of not moving in arrest of judgment. Such a failure would allow her to challenge the plea on appeal even though she did not comply with Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(d). See State v. Meron , 675 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Iowa 2004) . But, as the State points out, both the signed guilty plea and the order accepting the plea contained full explanations of the need t o file a motion in arrest of judgment. On this record, Deng waived error by opting not to move in arrest of4

judgment. See State v. Barnes , 652 N.W.2d 466, 468 (Iowa 2002) . So her challenge must take the form of ineffective assistance of counsel. We review her claim of ineffective assistance de novo. See State v.
Brubaker

, 805 N.W.2d 164, 171 (Iowa 2011). To succeed, Deng must show by a preponderance of t he evidence that (1) plea counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) th at failure resulted in prejudice. 1 See State v. Thorndike , 860 N.W.2d 316, 320 (Iowa 2015). Because Deng alleges ineffective assistance in
connection with her guilty plea, s he must show but for counsel’s breach a reasonable probability existed she would have insisted on going to trial. See State
v. Tate , 710 N.W.2d 237, 240 (Iowa 2006). O nly in rare cases will the trial record alone be sufficient to decide a claim of ineffe ctive assistance

. 2 State v. Atley , 564 N.W.2d 817, 833 (Iowa 1997) (explaining we ordinarily preserve ineffective

- assistance claims for PCR proceedings to allow full elaboration of the facts surrounding counsel’s conduct). This is not one of those rare cases. In her appellant’s bri ef, Deng asserts she is a legal permanent resident, commonly called a “green card” holder. But as the State points out, that information does not appear in the trial court record. We also have no insight into what Deng’s counsel advised her about the immigration consequences of her guilty

1 Deng also alleges structural error. We see no support for that allegation in this record. See Krogmann v. State , 914 N.W.2d 293, 313 (Iowa 2018) (describing st ructural error as m ore than flaw in trial process , but affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds ). 2 This appeal w as pending on July 1, 2019 ; so we may reach Deng’s claim on direct appeal if the reco rd is adequate. See State v. Macke , 933 N.W.2d 226, 228 (Iowa 2019).5

plea. Without those facts, we cannot determine whether counsel breached a duty or whether Deng suffered prejudice. See State v. Porte , No. 15

- 1159, 2016 WL 3556451, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. June 29, 2016) (affirming conviction and preserving

c laim for PCR); State v. Cantarero

- Diaz , No. 12

- 1694, 2013 WL 3274219, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 26, 2013) (same). For now, w e affirm the marijuana possession conviction. D eng may revisit the challenge to her legal representation if she files for PCR.
AFFIRMED.