FILED JULY 23, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 36557-3-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) JUAN CARLOS MENDOZA, ) ) Appellant. ) PENNELL, C.J. — Juan Carlos Mendoza appeals his 1995 conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing it was predicated on an invalid guilty plea. We disagree and affirm. FACTS In 1994, 19-year-old Juan Carlos Mendoza was charged with possession of a controlled substance, cocaine. Through appointed counsel, Mr. Mendoza filed a motion to suppress. The motion was denied for reasons not disclosed in the record on review. Mr. Mendoza’s attorney subsequently engaged in plea negotiations with the State. As a result, Mr. Mendoza was able to plead to a reduced charge of possession of a controlled substance. In May 1995, Mr. Mendoza received a sentence of 11 days’ incarceration. No. 36557-3-III State v. Mendoza Shortly after his conviction, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service issued Mr. Mendoza an order to show cause and notice of hearing, alleging he was subject to deportation on two bases: (1) entry without inspection, and (2) conviction for a controlled substance offense. An immigration judge subsequently ordered Mr. Mendoza’s deportation solely on the ground of entry without inspection. In 2011, Mr. Mendoza moved to vacate his 1995 conviction on statutory grounds. The State did not oppose this motion. The superior court vacated his conviction under RCW 9.94A.640.1 In January 2019, Mr. Mendoza filed a notice of appeal of his 1995 conviction. He argued the appeal was timely because he had never previously been notified of his right of appeal. The State did not challenge the timeliness of Mr. Mendoza’s appeal. After considering the matter on the court’s motion docket for dismissal as untimely, our commissioner found extraordinary circumstances under RAP 18.8(b) to extend the time for Mr. Mendoza to appeal. The commissioner also granted leave to Mr. Mendoza to supplement the record on review with documents appended to his memorandum filed in 1 The order did not fully extinguish the impact of Mr. Mendoza’s conviction. “[W]hen a conviction is vacated for rehabilitative reasons,” such as under RCW 9.94A.640, “the conviction remains valid for immigration purposes.” State v. Cervantes, 169 Wn. App. 428, 432, 282 P.3d 98 (2012). 2 No. 36557-3-III State v. Mendoza response to the court’s motion on timeliness. Approximately one month later, Mr. Mendoza moved to supplement the record with declarations from himself and his former trial counsel. Without conceding the accuracy of the factual assertions in the declarations, the State did not oppose their inclusion in the record on review. Based on the lack of objection, the clerk of court granted Mr. Mendoza’s motion. ANALYSIS Mr. Mendoza claims his guilty plea was invalid because it was not accompanied by constitutionally-mandated advice regarding immigration consequences. The right to effective assistance of counsel in the Sixth Amendment to the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals