FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON IN CLERK’S OFFICE JANUARY 28, 2021 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON JANUARY 28, 2021 SUSAN L. CARLSON SUPREME COURT CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of ) ) ALEJANDRO GARCIA-MENDOZA , ) ) No. 98026-8 Petitioner. ) ) ) Filed :________________ January 28, 2021 ____________________________________) GONZÁLEZ, C.J.— The right to effective assistance of counsel is a foundational part of the compact between each of us and our state. See WASH. CONST. art. I, § 22; State v. A.N.J., 168 Wn.2d 91, 96, 225 P.3d 956 (2010); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 337, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963). Any person charged with a crime has the constitutional right to competent counsel at every critical stage of the criminal proceeding and the constitutional right to the competent advice of that counsel. See A.N.J., 168 Wn.2d at 97-98. When the person charged is not a citizen of our nation, that right includes the right to be advised, by counsel, of any easily ascertainable immigration consequences that result from the charge. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 360, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010). Counsel’s failure to advise their clients of the In re Pers. Restraint of Garcia-Mendoza, No. 98026-8 easily ascertainable immigration consequences these clients face falls below the standard imposed by the federal and state constitutions and is deficient. Id. at 368. A person prejudiced by that deficient assistance is entitled to relief. Padilla, 559 U.S. at 360. Finality of judgments is also an important (though perhaps not a foundational) principle in our system of ordered liberty. See In re Pers. Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 809, 792 P.2d 506 (1990) (citing In re Pers. Restraint Hews, 99 Wn.2d 80, 86, 660 P.2d 263 (1983)). Finality is often in tension with other values we hold dear. The judicial branch strives to ensure that no one is judged by a fundamentally flawed process or restrained by a fundamentally flawed judgment. But challenges to judgments must be timely raised. In re Pers. Restraint of Coats, 173 Wn.2d 123, 150, 267 P.3d 324 (2011). Generally, to be timely, the challenge must be raised before the trial court, through an appeal, or in a timely brought collateral attack. See id. (citing RCW 10.73.100). But there is no time bar on some challenges, including challenges premised on a significant, retroactive, and material change in the law since a defendant was convicted, such as challenges based on Padilla’s requirement that a defendant be advised of the easily ascertainable immigration consequences of a guilty plea. In re Pers. Restraint of Yung-Cheng Tsai, 183 Wn.2d 91, 107-08, 351 P.3d 138 2 In re Pers. Restraint of Garcia-Mendoza, No. 98026-8 (2015). In 2007, Alejandro Garcia Mendoza 1 pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance. He moved to withdraw that plea on the grounds his counsel ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals