Opinion ID: 2815768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Shata's Plea Withdrawal Motion and Hearing

Text: ¶21 About four months later, on March 15, 2013, Shata filed a postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In his motion, he argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because Attorney Toran failed to inform him that federal law required he be deported following his conviction. Shata argued that Attorney Toran should have told him that he was subject to mandatory deportation because the offense involved more than 30 grams of marijuana. Shata alleged that Attorney Toran informed him that he did not have to worry about any immigration consequences because he would be receiving probation, and [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] only initiated deportation proceedings for aliens serving prison terms. However, despite that allegation, Shata noted that Attorney Toran stated at the plea hearing that 'there's a potential he could be deported.' Shata also complained that the circuit court did not inform [him] that his conviction 11 No. 2013AP1437-CR would necessarily subject him to deportation proceedings. The court merely stated that his plea 'may' result in deportation. ¶22 On May 31, 2013, the circuit court held a Machner hearing on Shata's postconviction motion.8 Attorney Toran testified that he had informed Shata of the potential for deportation if convicted. Attorney Toran testified that he had used the word potential and did not tell Shata that deportation was mandatory. He also testified that he advised [Shata] prior to the plea that he may be deported, that there's a strong chance that he could be deported . . . . Attorney Toran testified that he knew [pleading guilty] would subject [Shata] to deportation. But Attorney Toran didn't know [deportation] was mandatory. Attorney Toran testified that he didn't research the immigration consequences in terms of whether or not it was mandatory. He also stated that he had not researched the federal immigration statutes. However, he explained that he was familiar with Padilla, 559 U.S. 356. He also testified that he had asked a number of federal prosecutors about whether or not the impact of pleading to this charge would subject [Shata] to deportation, and they said it could, everyone used the word 'it could.' Attorney Toran also explained that he had tried to have the charge amended so that Shata could avoid the possibility of deportation, but the State was unwilling to amend the charge. Attorney Toran testified 8 See State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 12 No. 2013AP1437-CR that he had advised Shata to plead guilty because they had no defense, Shata confessed to the crime, and the State would recommend probation if he pled guilty. ¶23 Shata testified next. He stated that he would not have pled guilty if he had known that he would be subject to mandatory deportation upon conviction. He testified that Attorney Toran didn't say a strong chance of deportation existed. To the contrary, Shata testified that Attorney Toran promised [him] to get probation and told Shata that if you get probation, you're not going to be deported. Shata further testified that he received a letter from the Immigration and Naturalization Services that ordered him to appear before an immigration judge.9 ¶24 The circuit court found that the testimony of Attorney Toran was more credible and that counsel had informed Shata of a strong likelihood of deportation if convicted. It found the testimony of Mr. Toran to be credible under the circumstances, 9 This letter does not appear in the record. Further, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Services ceased to exist in 2003. The record, however, does contain Page 1 of 3 of a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration Detainer——Notice of Action, which was signed on November 23, 2012. A checked box on the form indicates that the DHS [i]nitiated an investigation to determine whether this person is subject to removal from the United States. An unchecked box on the form indicates that the DHS had not [i]nitiated removal proceedings and served a Notice to Appear or other charging document. Another unchecked box on the form indicates that the DHS had not [o]btained an order of deportation or removal from the United States for this person. 13 No. 2013AP1437-CR that he did advise Mr. Shata, unlike Padilla, that there was a strong likelihood that he would be deported. The circuit court also stated, I don't find that Mr. Toran told Mr. Shata that he would be getting probation and would go back to New Jersey and nothing would happen. ¶25 The circuit court concluded that Shata had not received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that Attorney Toran did not perform deficiently. The circuit court distinguished Padilla explaining that even the language in Padilla is not that it's mandatory that you'll be deported, but that it's presumptively mandatory, and the difference between the strong likelihood and presumptive deportation, I don't think that there's necessarily a significant difference. The circuit court also held that Shata failed to prove that he was prejudiced. It stated, I don't find Mr. Shata's testimony to be credible today that he would've gone to trial under any circumstance had he known that removal, deportation was a presumptive mandatory. The court also noted that [t]here appears to be some discretion as to whether Shata will be deported and that [i]t appears at least no one has presented factually that the law is that he will, in fact, automatically be deported. Accordingly, the circuit court denied Shata's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and issued a written order to that effect on July 15, 2013.