IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 18-1072 Filed May 13, 2020 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AWADIA MAJAK DENG, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District Associate Judge. A defendant appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana. AFFIRMED. Joel E. Fenton of Law Offices of Joel E. Fenton, PLC, West Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ. 2 TABOR, Presiding Judge. Awadia Deng challenges her conviction for marijuana possession. She alleges her attorney was ineffective in advising her about the immigration consequences of her guilty plea. Because the record is inadequate to resolve her ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, we affirm her conviction but preserve her claim for possible postconviction-relief (PCR) proceedings. The Polk County Attorney charged Deng with possession of marijuana in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2017). The charge came after dispatch sent police officers to investigate a domestic dispute in October 2017. A caller reported her mother had locked her out of the house. When they arrived, officers found Deng in the kitchen holding a marijuana grinder. The officers told her it was illegal to possess drug paraphernalia. Deng and her mother grew “agitated” in response to the officers’ questions about the reason for the 911 call. When the officers suggested Deng leave the home for the evening, she said, “[J]ust arrest me.” Their search incident to that arrest recovered a small baggie of marijuana in Deng’s purse. In May 2018, Deng signed a written guilty plea. As part of the bargain, Deng agreed to a ten-day jail sentence. In return, the State agreed to dismiss several other misdemeanor charges. The plea form included this italicized acknowledgment: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, a criminal conviction or deferred judgment may result in deportation and affect re- entry into the United States or have other adverse immigration consequences under federal immigration laws.” The form also advised Deng that if she did not 3 move in arrest of judgment within the applicable time frame she would waive her right to challenge her guilty plea on appeal. The court accepted her guilty plea at an in-person hearing. At the hearing, the court asked Deng is she was a citizen of the United States. Defense counsel responded, “[O]ur office policy is if there are any immigration consequences for a certain client, we get an immigration consult. If there are any immigration consequences for M[s.] Deng, they would have been reviewed thoroughly.” The court then told Deng, “Even the best immigration expert cannot predict what might happen in the future that could [a]ffect anyone that has immigration consequences. Do you understand that?” Deng said she understood. Deng did not move in arrest of judgment to challenge her guilty plea. In June 2018, the court imposed the agreed-upon ten-day jail sentence. On appeal, Deng complains ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals