Nebraska Advance Sheets

754 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

did not err in determining that the date of injury was February 

11, 2009, as that was the date on which Potter first missed 

work due to her pain, even though she had previously sought 

medical treatment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the compensation court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Heavican, C.J., not participating.

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Jose Luis Sandoval, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 8, 2014. No. S-11-872.

1. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When issues on appeal present questions of law, 

an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision of the court below.

2. Judgments: Constitutional Law: Legislature: Appeal and Error. The common-law writ of error coram nobis exists in this state under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 49-101 (Reissue 2010), which adopts English common law to the extent that it 

is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the organic law of 

this state, or any law passed by our Legislature.

3. Judgments: Evidence: Appeal and Error. The purpose of the writ of error 

coram nobis is to bring before the court rendering judgment matters of fact 

which, if known at the time the judgment was rendered, would have prevented 

its rendition.

4. ____: ____: ____. The writ of error coram nobis reaches only matters of fact 

unknown to the applicant at the time of judgment, not discoverable through reasonable diligence, and which are of a nature that, if known by the court, would 

have prevented entry of judgment.

5. Judgments: Appeal and Error. The writ of error coram nobis is not available to 

correct errors of law.

6. Judgments: Pleas: Convictions: Proof. The failure of a district court to give 

the advisement required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(1) (Reissue 2008) does 

not prevent acceptance of a plea and entry of a judgment of conviction. Rather, 

it provides a basis for the defendant to subsequently move to vacate the judgment and withdraw the plea upon a showing that the advisement was not given 

and the defendant faces an immigration consequence as a result of the plea and 

subsequent conviction.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

STATE v. SANDOVAL 755

Cite as 288 Neb. 754

7. Judgments: Pleas: Convictions. A writ of error coram nobis cannot be utilized 

to set aside a plea-based conviction on the ground that the court failed to properly 

advise the defendant of the immigration consequences of the plea.

Appeal from the District Court for Dakota County: Paul J. 

Vaughan, Judge. Affirmed.

Joshua W. Weir, of Dornan, Lustgarten & Troia, P.C., L.L.O., 

for appellant.

Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and J. Kirk Brown for 

appellee.

Wright, Connolly, Stephan, McCormack, Miller-Lerman, 

and Cassel, JJ.

Stephan, J.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the failure of 

the court to advise a defendant of the immigration consequences 

of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere prior to acceptance of the 

plea can serve as the basis for a writ of error coram nobis. We 

conclude that it cannot and, therefore, affirm the judgment of 

the district court for Dakota County denying the writ.

BACKGROUND

On October 28, 2003, Jose Luis Sandoval was charged in 

Dakota County District Court with possession of methamphetamine. He pled not guilty. In January 2004, Sandoval changed 

his plea to guilty as part of a plea agreement with the State. 

The record of the plea hearing reflects that the district court 

did not advise Sandoval of the immigration consequences of 

his guilty plea, even though such an advisement is required by 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.02(1) (Reissue 2008).

After Sandoval had served the sentence for his offense, 

he filed a “Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis” seeking an order “vacating the judgment and allowing [him] to 

withdraw his previously entered plea of guilty and allow him 

to enter a plea of not guilty.” The petition stated that it was 

“filed pursuant to the common law writ of error coram nobis 

which exists in this state pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-101 

[Reissue 2010].” It also referenced § 29-1819.02(2), which 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

756 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

permits a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea if he or she 

is not advised of the immigration consequences required by 

§ 29-1819.02(1) and the defendant faces such immigration 

consequences. The petition asserted that neither the district 

court nor defense counsel advised Sandoval of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and argued he should be 

allowed to withdraw his guilty plea based on the violation of 

§ 29-1819.02, because he received ineffective assistance of 

counsel, and because his plea was not entered freely, intelligently, and voluntarily.

The district court denied relief. It concluded that Sandoval’s 

claims were not based upon an error of fact that could be 

addressed via a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Sandoval 

timely appealed. We overruled the State’s motion for summary 

affirmance but ordered supplemental briefing.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Sandoval assigns, restated, that a writ of error coram nobis 

should be issued, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea, 

because the district court failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea prior to accepting it.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] When issues on appeal present questions of law, an 

appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision of the court below.1

ANALYSIS

Sandoval alleged in his operative petition that the court 

failed to give him the advisement required by § 29-1819.02(1) 

but that he was precluded by our holding in State v. RodriguezTorres2

 from asserting a right to withdraw his plea pursuant to 

§ 29-1819.02(2) because he had served his sentence. He then 

alleged that the district court had “common law jurisdiction to 

vacate [his] conviction” through a writ of error coram nobis. 

1 State v. Landera, 285 Neb. 243, 826 N.W.2d 570 (2013); State v. Torres, 

283 Neb. 142, 812 N.W.2d 213 (2012), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. 

Ct. 244, 184 L. Ed. 2d 129.

2 State v. Rodriguez-Torres, 275 Neb. 363, 746 N.W.2d 686 (2008).
Nebraska Advance Sheets

STATE v. SANDOVAL 757

Cite as 288 Neb. 754

Thus, the narrow issue presented to the district court was 

whether this common-law remedy could be utilized to afford 

relief for Sandoval’s claims. The district court determined that 

“a writ [of] error coram nobis [was] not an appropriate remedy.” Our analysis is limited to whether this was error.

[2-5] The common-law writ of error coram nobis exists in 

this state under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-101 (Reissue 2010), which 

adopts English common law to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the organic 

law of this state, or any law passed by our Legislature.3 The 

purpose of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring before the 

court rendering judgment matters of fact which, if known at 

the time the judgment was rendered, would have prevented its 

rendition.4 The writ reaches only matters of fact unknown to 

the applicant at the time of judgment, not discoverable through 

reasonable diligence, and which are of a nature that, if known 

by the court, would have prevented entry of judgment.5 The 

writ is not available to correct errors of law.6

In this appeal, Sandoval argues that a writ of error coram 

nobis should issue, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea, 

because the district court failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea prior to accepting it. He contends the district court’s failure to give the advisement violated both the statutory right encompassed in § 29-1819.02(2) 

and his right to due process of law. We conclude that neither of these claims supports the issuance of a writ of error 

coram nobis.

In State v. Diaz,

7

 we held a writ of error coram nobis was 

not an appropriate method for a defendant to challenge a 

plea-based conviction on the basis that he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to advise him of 

the immigration consequences of a guilty plea and subsequent 

3 State v. Diaz, 283 Neb. 414, 808 N.W.2d 891 (2012).

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

758 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

conviction. We reasoned that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim presents a mixed question of fact and law and that 

because the claim rested in part on questions of law, it could 

not be resolved via a writ of error coram nobis. We also reasoned that a writ of error coram nobis was inappropriate for 

the additional reason that, whether the defendant had been 

advised of the immigration consequences of his plea or not, 

the district court was not prevented from rendering judgment 

against him.

[6] Sandoval’s claim that he is entitled to coram nobis 

relief, based upon the failure of the court to give an immigration consequences advisement before accepting his plea, is 

likewise without merit. As in Diaz, whether the court gave 

Sandoval the immigration consequences advisement or not, it 

was not prevented from rendering judgment against him. The 

failure of a district court to give the advisement required by 

§ 29-1819.02(1) does not prevent acceptance of a plea and 

entry of a judgment of conviction. Rather, it provides a basis 

for the defendant to subsequently move to vacate the judgment 

and withdraw the plea upon a showing that the advisement was 

not given and the defendant faces an immigration consequence 

as a result of the plea and subsequent conviction.8 Unless and 

until the defendant successfully exercises that right, the judgment of conviction remains in full force.

Sandoval’s claim based on due process fails for the same 

reason. In State v. Wilson,

9

 a convicted defendant who had 

completed his sentence and was facing deportation sought 

a writ of error coram nobis, contending that he was denied 

due process of law by the court’s failure to advise him of the 

immigration consequences of his nolo contendere plea. Noting 

that the writ was intended to “remedy errors of fact, not errors 

of law,” we reasoned that because “any alleged failure of the 

District Court to properly inform the appellant of his constitutional rights would clearly be an error of law, a writ of 

8 See, § 29-1819.02(2); State v. Mena-Rivera, 280 Neb. 948, 791 N.W.2d 

613 (2010); State v. Yos-Chiguil, 278 Neb. 591, 772 N.W.2d 574 (2009).

9 State v. Wilson, 194 Neb. 587, 234 N.W.2d 208 (1975).
Nebraska Advance Sheets

STATE v. SANDOVAL 759

Cite as 288 Neb. 754

error coram nobis is not the appropriate remedy.”10 Moreover, 

the substance of Sandoval’s due process claim depends upon 

retroactive application of the rule announced by the U.S. 

Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky,

11 and the Court held in 

Chaidez v. U.S.12 that the rule announced in Padilla does not 

so apply.

[7] For the sake of completeness, we note that Sandoval 

pursued the common-law coram nobis remedy at least in part 

based on an understanding that he was precluded from exercising the remedy under § 29-1819.02(2) by the fact that he had 

completed his sentence. His understanding was based upon 

a reading of State v. Rodriguez-Torres,

13 which we recently 

held in State v. Rodriguez14 was incorrect. Because Sandoval 

sought relief in this action solely in the form of a writ of 

error coram nobis, we do not comment upon whether he has 

grounds for relief under § 29-1819.02(2) in light of our holding in Rodriguez.

15 Rather, limiting our review to the issue 

presented to and decided by the district court, we hold that a 

writ of error coram nobis cannot be utilized to set aside a pleabased conviction on the ground that the court failed to properly advise the defendant of the immigration consequences of 

the plea.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, we affirm the judgment of the 

district court.

Affirmed.

Heavican, C.J. not participating.

10 Id. at 589, 234 N.W.2d at 210.

11 Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 

(2010).

12 Chaidez v. U.S., ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 185 L. Ed. 2d 149 (2013).

13 State v. Rodriguez-Torres, supra note 2.

14 State v. Rodriguez, ante p. 714, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2014).

15 Id.