Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two June 2, 2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 52801-1-II Respondent, v. FEN SHOU CHEN, UNPUBLISHED OPINION Appellant. GLASGOW, J.—Fen Shou Chen pleaded guilty to one count of manufacture of a controlled substance and was released from custody on credit for time served. His plea avoided a potential high end sentence of 10 years had he proceeded to trial. Upon his release, he was detained by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Chen then moved to withdraw his guilty plea on two grounds. First, he argued that he was denied an adequate interpreter when he entered the plea because he was only provided a Mandarin interpreter for his plea proceedings, even though his primary dialect is Fuzhou. Second, he argued that his attorney inadequately advised him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty because she told him that it was unlikely that ICE would immediately detain him when he was released from jail. He contends that the lack of a Fuzhou interpreter also impacted his ability to understand his attorney’s advice regarding the immigration consequences of his plea. The trial court denied Chen’s motion to withdraw his plea. Chen appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion, raising the same arguments that he did below. We affirm. No. 52801-1-II FACTS In December 2017 Chen was arrested and charged with one count of manufacture of a controlled substance, marijuana, and one count of unlawful use of a building for drug purposes. On his attorney’s advice, Chen decided to plead guilty to the marijuana charge so that he would be released immediately with credit for time served. The other charge was dismissed. At least a week before pleading guilty, Chen informed his attorney that his first language was the Fuzhou dialect of Chinese, rather than the Mandarin dialect spoken by the interpreters they had been using. Chen said he understood 75-80 percent of conversational Mandarin, but not legal terminology. At the change of plea hearing, Chen nevertheless had a Mandarin interpreter. At the beginning of the hearing, the interpreter confirmed that he had spoken with Chen that morning and was satisfied that Chen understood and could communicate well with him. The trial court did not ask Chen if he understood the immigration consequences of his plea. However, the trial court did ask Chen if he understood his plea agreement and if it had been translated for him, and Chen said yes. Chen also affirmed that he understood the proceedings and did not have any further questions, other than asking about the return of some of his personal belongings. The plea agreement that Chen signed included a clause advising him that pleading guilty to a crime under state law is grounds for deportation. The plea agreement also included an interpreter certification that the Mandarin interpreter signed under the penalty of perjury, stating that Chen understood Mandarin and that he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals