FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 24, 2021 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2021 ND 110 Bashir Bare Abdi, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee No. 20200341 Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Rhonda R. Ehlis, Judge. AFFIRMED. Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice. Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner and appellant. James A. Hope, Assistant State’s Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief. Abdi v. State No. 20200341 McEvers, Justice. [¶1] Bashir Bare Abdi appeals from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. On appeal, Abdi argues the court erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and as a result his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Specifically, Abdi argues he would not have entered a plea of guilty had he been properly advised on the virtual certainty of deportation. We affirm. I [¶2] Abdi was charged with luring minors in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20- 05.1, a class B felony, on January 30, 2019. This charge resulted from Abdi’s alleged communications with a person he believed to be a fourteen year-old girl, but was in fact an undercover agent, after Abdi arranged to engage in sexual activity with her in exchange for a candy bar. [¶3] An initial appearance hearing was held on January 30, 2019. Abdi’s native language is Somali, and a Somali-speaking interpreter’s services were engaged for the hearing. At the hearing, the district court informed Abdi that deportation could result from being convicted or pleading guilty on these charges, and Abdi indicated he understood through his interpreter. On August 5, 2019, Abdi pleaded guilty to an amended charge of corruption or solicitation of minors, a class C felony. [¶4] Abdi filed an application for post-conviction relief on August 11, 2020. In his application, Abdi argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not properly advise him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty and therefore his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. [¶5] On November 2, 2020, a post-conviction evidentiary hearing was held, and Abdi’s trial counsel testified. Counsel stated that he discussed potential 2 immigration consequences with Abdi in their first meeting. Counsel further testified he told Abdi “that if he either pled guilty or was convicted of the charges that there would be immigration consequences, that it was a deportable offense, and that in all likelihood he would be taken into custody.” Counsel stated he had multiple conversations with Abdi about immigration consequences throughout the course of his representation. [¶6] On November 9, 2020, the district court denied Abdi’s application for post-conviction relief. The court found Abdi’s trial counsel was effective because he had advised Abdi of the potential immigration consequences of pleading guilty, and additionally found Abdi failed to establish prejudice. The court also found …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals