05/21/2020 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 15, 2020 RODOLFO GUERRA-ROSALES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. F-81563 Royce Taylor, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2019-01375-CCA-R3-PC ___________________________________ The Petitioner, Rodolfo Guerra-Rosales, pleaded guilty in General Sessions Court to misdemeanor drug possession, and the court imposed a probation sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The Petitioner timely filed a post-conviction petition in circuit court, alleging that his guilty plea in general sessions court was involuntary based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding that the claim was not cognizable and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts, and the State concedes, that the post-conviction court had jurisdiction to consider the petition and that his petition stated a colorable claim. After review, we reverse the post-conviction court’s dismissal and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the Petitioner’s claim. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, P.J., and ALAN E. GLENN, J., joined. David I. Komisar, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Rodolfo Guerra-Rosales. Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jennings H. Jones, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION I. Factual and Procedural History On June 29, 2018, the Petitioner pleaded guilty in the Rutherford County General Sessions Court to misdemeanor drug possession. The general sessions court sentenced the Petitioner to a probation sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On June 26, 2019, the Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Rutherford County. Citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), he alleged that his plea was entered involuntarily without understanding the immigration consequences of the conviction due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. On July 8, 2019, the post-conviction court issued an order finding that the Petitioner had failed to state a colorable claim. The order then stated: “Further, this Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to consider this petition because it was filed in the Circuit Court of Rutherford County. The Petitioner pled guilty in the General Sessions Court of Rutherford County.” The Petitioner timely filed this appeal, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in its jurisdictional determination and, because the Petitioner stated a colorable claim, by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The State concedes that the Petitioner presented a colorable claim and that the post-conviction court had jurisdiction to hold a hearing on the claim. The State therefore argues that a remand for a hearing is the proper remedy. I. Analysis On appeal, the Petitioner asks this court to remand for an evidentiary hearing on his claim that Counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea. Both parties agree that the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals