Opinion ID: 906391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: At a hearing on November 22, 2010, Hector Medina-Liborio pled no contest to an amended information charging one count of attempted first degree sexual assault of a child and one count of kidnapping. The court subsequently sentenced him to 20 to 25 years’ imprisonment on the attempted sexual assault conviction and to 20 to 25 years’ imprisonment on the kidnapping charge, the sentences to run consecutively. Medina-Liborio filed a timely direct appeal, asserting in part that the district court erred in accepting his pleas without giving him the advisement required by § 29-1819.02. That statute requires: (1) Prior to acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to any offense punishable as a crime under state law, except offenses designated as infractions under state law, the court shall administer the following advisement on the record to the defendant: IF YOU ARE NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT CONVICTION OF THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED MAY HAVE THE CONSEQUENCES OF REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES, OR DENIAL OF NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. (2) . . . If, on or after July 20, 2002, the court fails to advise the defendant as required by this section and the 2 § 29-1819.02(2). Nebraska Advance Sheets 628 285 NEBRASKA REPORTS defendant shows that conviction of the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty or nolo contendere may have the consequences for the defendant of removal from the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States, the court, on the defendant’s motion, shall vacate the judgment and permit the defend­ ant to withdraw the plea of guilty or nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty. Absent a record that the court provided the advisement required by this section, the defendant shall be presumed not to have received the required advisement. In a memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed that the district court failed to give the advisement required by this statute but denied relief, reasoning that Medina-Liborio’s remedy was to file a motion to withdraw his pleas.3 Neither party has challenged that determination. Medina-Liborio then filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, alleging that the district court failed to give him the advisement required by § 29-1819.02 and that he faces immigration consequences as the result of his no contest plea-based convictions. At an evidentiary hearing on this motion, the district court received the bill of exceptions from the plea hearing and a detainer issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security advising the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services that Medina-Liborio had been ordered deported or removed from the United States, and requesting Nebraska officials to notify the Department of Homeland Security at least 30 days prior to his release. The State, over a relevance objection, offered recorded telephone conversations between Medina-Liborio and members of his family. In these conversations, which took place prior to the date Medina-Liborio entered his pleas, he discussed deportation as a consequence of conviction. The State also offered the testimony, over MedinaLiborio’s relevance and attorney-client privilege objection, of the attorney who represented him prior to and at the time he entered his pleas. This attorney testified, subject to his own 3 See State v. Medina-Liborio, No. A-11-147, 2011 WL 3615572 (Neb. App. Aug. 16, 2011) (selected for posting to court Web site). Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. MEDINA-LIBORIO 629 Cite as 285 Neb. 626 assertion of the attorney-client privilege, that he had advised Medina-Liborio that if convicted of the charges, he would be deported. The district court ultimately denied Medina-Liborio’s motion to withdraw his pleas. It reasoned that the plain language of § 29-1819.02 must be read in light of the legislative intent expressed in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1819.03 (Reissue 2008), concluding: [Here,] the concerns of the legislature about a Defendant entering a plea without understanding the possible deportation or naturalization consequences [are] met as the State has submitted evidence that [Medina-Liborio] not only knew that he might be deported but that he in fact understood that he would be deported based on the convictions which are the subject matter of the pending motion. The court further noted that to allow defendants who know the consequences set forth in § 29-1819.02 to withdraw the pleas would allow such individuals to “game” the system by hoping that the trial court would not give the admonitions set forth in the statute and then such Defendants could proceed to sentencing and if they felt the sentences were extremely harsh or excessive they could withdraw their pleas, enter pleas of not guilty and start the proceeding all over again contemplating for a different result. Medina-Liborio filed this timely appeal. We moved the case to our docket on our own motion pursuant to our statutory authority to regulate the caseloads of the appellate courts of this state.4 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Medina-Liborio assigns, restated and consolidated, that the district court erred in (1) denying his motion to set aside his pleas, (2) admitting irrelevant evidence relating to whether he actually knew the immigration consequences of his pleas prior to entering them, and (3) admitting testimony from his former attorney that was subject to the attorney-client privilege. 4 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Reissue 2008). Nebraska Advance Sheets 630 285 NEBRASKA REPORTS