Opinion ID: 2023075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Duty of the Court.

Text: Ramirez contends the court committed constitutional error when it accepted his guilty plea without satisfying itself he understood the deportation consequences. The State responds that Ramirez failed to object at the plea proceeding, and in any event, the court was not required to make such an inquiry. Ramirez rejoins, on the preservation issue, that he is excused from objecting at the plea hearing because his trial counsel was ineffective. We consider this issue on its merits, despite Ramirez's failure to object before the district court and conclude the court was not required to make this inquiry. It is well-settled that a trial court is not required to advise a defendant sua sponte of potential federal deportation consequences of a plea of guilty to a felony charge when accepting such plea. People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523, 526 (Colo. 1987) (holding counsel must investigate relevant immigration law when counsel is aware defendant is an alien). Indeed, this rule has been characterized as unanimous. Id. at 533 (Rovira, J., dissenting on other grounds). As one court has said, however, we recognize that some states have imposed the duty to inform non-citizen defendants about the deportation consequences that result from entering a guilty plea. Nevertheless, such provisions have been enacted by statute or rule .... State v. Rosas, 183 Ariz. 421, 904 P.2d 1245, 1247 (Ct.App.1995) (emphasis added). Under our rules of criminal procedure, the court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily and intelligently and has a factual basis. Before accepting a plea of guilty, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following: (1) The nature of the charges to which the plea is offered. (2) The mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and the maximum possible punishment provided by the statute defining the offense to which the plea is offered. (3) That the defendant has the right to be tried by a jury, and at trial has the right to assistance of counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against the defendant, the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself, and the right to present witnesses in the defendant's own behalf and to have compulsory process in securing their attendance. (4) That if the defendant pleads guilty there will not be a further trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty the defendant waives the right to a trial. Iowa R.Crim. P. 8(2)(b). Our rule does not require the court to inform the defendant regarding consequences such as deportation. Ramirez contends his constitutional rights transcend rule 8, and the court's failure to advise him of the impact of the guilty plea violates his due process rights under the federal and state constitutions. He claims the court failed to satisfy itself that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because it did not raise a possible deportation issue. He cites Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 369, 88 L.Ed.2d 203, 208 (1985) (The long-standing test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is `whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.' (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 168 (1970))). Our court has not discussed the failure of the court to advise a defendant of deportation consequences. [2] We rely to some extent on federal authorities applying similar guilty-plea rules. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c) requires certain inquiries by the court: Advice to Defendant. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following: (1) the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law, including the effect of any special parole or supervised release term and, when applicable, that the court may also order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of the offense.... One authority has noted that, while some direct consequences of a guilty plea must be understood by the defendant, [o]ther consequences are more clearly collateral, and it is not required that defendant be informed of them. These have been held to include: loss of civil rights; increased punishment if the defendant should repeat the offense; undesirable discharge from the armed forces; deportation; ineligibility for federal benefits; later parole date; revocation of an existing parole; an adverse recommendation from the court to the parole authorities; denial of good time as a multiple offender; revocation of a driver's license; and an adverse effect on civil litigation.... A defendant need not be told that the court lacks power to order that the federal sentence run concurrently with a state sentence. Defendants need not be told when pleading guilty that the conduct to which they entered the plea might be used as a predicate offense for a RICO prosecution. Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 173, at 191-94 (1999) [hereinafter Wright] (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). We agree with these authorities and the majority rule among states that the court is not required by due process to ascertain the defendant's understanding of possible deportation consequences, despite Ramirez's argument that deportation is different in kind from other consequences because of its severity. It would, however, be proper, and probably desirable, for the court to advise a defendant of such matters. See Wright § 173, at 195; see also United States v. Russell, 686 F.2d 35, 41-42 (D.C.Cir.1982) (District courts need to remember that although they are not required to explain the possibility of deportation to alien defendants before accepting a plea ... nothing prohibits them from doing so. The distribution of justice to alien defendants can only be enhanced if the trial courts make sure defendants know the pandects under which they plead.).