FILED COURT OF APPEALS DIV 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2018 MAR 19 All 8:145 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE In the Matter of the Personal ) No. 76583-3-1 Restraint Petition of ) ) ) FRANCISCO ZUNIGA-FLORES, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Petitioner. ) FILED: March 19, 2018 ) PER CURIAM—In this personal restraint petition, Francisco Zuniga-Flores collaterally challenges his 2016 convictions imposed upon his guilty plea to multiple drug charges. Zuniga-Flores contends that his defense counsel failed to accurately advise him about the deportation consequences of pleading guilty. We grant Zuniga- Flores's petition and remand to the superior court with instructions that he be allowed to withdraw his plea. FACTS On April 28, 2016, Zuniga-Flores pleaded guilty to reduced charges of two counts of possession of a controlled substance (heroin) and one count of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (heroin). In February 2017, Zuniga-Flores filed a CrR 7.8 motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, arguing that his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the plea process by failing to fully and accurately advise him of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. The superior court concluded that Zuniga-Flores had not made a substantial showing that he was entitled No. 76583-3-1/2 tO•relief'aft] th`afi'esolution of the'CrR 7.8(thotion did not require a faetual hearing. The trial court transferred Zuniga-Flores's motion to this court for consideration as a personal restraint petition) Based on the discrepancies between the petitioner's declaration and the declaration of his trial attorney, we determined that the petition could not be decided solely on the record before us and remanded to superior court for a reference hearing. We directed the superior court to determine (1) whether Zuniga-Flores's trial counsel rendered constitutionally inadequate assistance by failing to adequately advise him with regard to immigration consequences of his plea, and if so,(2) whether Zuniga-Flores suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's conduct. Following the reference hearing, the superior court entered numerous findings of fact, including the following: 26. [The defendant's attorney] never told Zuniga that he would definitely be deported. She did not believe he would definitely be deported. [The attorney] had clients whose charges were not immigration- safe, and they were not deported. 29. [The attorney] did not tell Zuniga that deportation was presumptively mandatory or words to that effect. 30. [The attorney] did not tell Zuniga that the plea would make him ineligible to apply for or receive almost all forms of immigration relief, including Cancellation of Removal. [The attorney] did not know what Cancellation of Removal was. 31. The immigration consequences of the pleas are clear. They include the following, non-exhaustive list: a. Zuniga became removable from the United States for an aggravated felony, meaning he would lose his [Lawful Permanent Resident] status. 1 See CrR 7.8(b)(2). 2 No. 76583-3-1/3 b. Zuniga's removal was virtually certain. c. Zuniga lost the ability to receive all but the most challenging form of immigration relief, which is reprieve from removal under the Convention ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals