FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT AUGUST 5, 2021 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2021 ND 148 Yaasiin Aweis Isxaaq, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee Nos. 20210066-20210068 Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Stephannie N. Stiel, Judge. AFFIRMED. Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice. Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner and appellant. Alexis Madlom (argued), third-year law student, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, and Nicholas A. Samuelson (appeared), Assistant State’s Attorneys, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellee. Isxaaq v. State Nos. 20210066-20210068 McEvers, Justice. Yaasin Aweis Isxaaq appeals from a district court order denying his applications for post-conviction relief, in which he sought to withdraw his guilty pleas in three underlying criminal cases. We affirm, concluding the district court did not err in denying Isxaaq’s applications for post-conviction relief. I Isxaaq is a citizen of Somalia who gained lawful permanent resident status in 2018 after seeking asylum as a refugee in 2014. Isxaaq filed post- conviction relief applications regarding three underlying criminal cases, which were consolidated for hearing in the district court. Isxaaq was charged with theft in June 2016, and pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct later that month. Isxaaq was later charged with misdemeanor sexual assault in February 2017 and pleaded guilty in March 2017. Isxaaq was then charged with misdemeanor theft, and pleaded guilty in January 2020. All three charges were class B misdemeanors. Isxaaq was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), pending deportation proceedings, on January 29, 2020. In all three cases, Isxaaq argued his guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made because he had not been properly advised on adverse immigration consequences, and because an interpreter was not used when he communicated with his attorneys. At the evidentiary hearing on his applications, Isxaaq testified, as did two of his former trial attorneys. Isxaaq testified in all three cases he would not have pleaded guilty and instead would have proceeded to trial had he been properly advised on immigration consequences. Isxaaq alleged his guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary due to a language barrier, and argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to utilize an interpreter. Both former trial attorneys testified they discussed potential adverse immigration 1 consequences with Isxaaq, had no trouble communicating with Isxaaq in English, and did not require an interpreter’s services to advise him. The district court entered an order denying Isxaaq’s applications for post-conviction relief on February 17, 2021, finding the record did not support his claim that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary because he did not understand English, and Isxaaq failed to establish prejudice in all three cases. II On appeal, Isxaaq argues the district court erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and his pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals