IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE In re Personal Restraint of: ) No. 79621-6 ) ) ALEJANDRO GARCIA-MENDOZA ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: December 2, 2019 ANDRUS, J. — Alejandro Garcia-Mendoza seeks relief from his 2006 conviction for possession of a controlled substance, a crime to which he pleaded guilty. In this personal restraint petition, Garcia-Mendoza argues that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), because defense counsel did not inform him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty outside of the standard form plea agreement. He also argues that he was deprived of a statutory right to be informed of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty under RCW 10.40.200. Although the former claim is timely, the latter is time- barred. We thus dismiss Garcia-Mendoza's petition as time-barred. FACTS Alejandro Garcia-Mendoza moved to the United States from Mexico with his parents in 1998, when he was 13 years old. Although his wife and daughter are citizens of the United States, Garcia-Mendoza never became a United States citizen. No. 79621-6-1/2 On September 19, 2006,the State charged Garcia-Mendoza with one count of possession of a controlled substance. On March 27, 2007, Garcia-Mendoza pleaded guilty to the crime and agreed to a 110-day sentence and 12 months' community custody. Subsection (r) to the Defendant's Statement said: "If I am not a citizen of the United States, a plea of guilty to an offense punishable as a crime under state law is grounds for deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States." On July 19, 2007, the court accepted Garcia-Mendoza's plea and sentenced him to 110 days in confinement. On October 18, 2018, Garcia- Mendoza moved to withdraw his guilty plea, initially arguing that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because defense counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of entering a plea of guilty. He acknowledged that his petition was over the one-year time limit of RCW 10.73.090 but argued that Padilla v. Kentucky was a significant change in the law and made his petition timely under RCW 10.73.100(6). At the time he moved to withdraw his guilty plea, Garcia-Mendoza was in deportation proceedings. On November 15, 2018, the State filed a motion to transfer Garcia- Mendoza's motion for relief from judgment to the Court of Appeals for consideration as a personal restraint petition. It conceded that in light of Padilla, Garcia-Mendoza's claim was not time-barred by RCW 10.73.090. In Garcia- Mendoza's response to the State's motion to transfer, he alleged that he was also entitled to withdraw his conviction because he did not receive adequate advice about the immigration consequences of his conviction as he claims are now 2 No. 79621-6-1/3 required by RCW 10.40.200. The State argued that Garcia-Mendoza's RCW 10.40.200 claim was time-barred and rendered his entire ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals