FILED MAY 12, 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WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 36392-9-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) JUAN MANUEL FLORES-ARROYO, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) KORSMO, J. — Juan Flores-Arroyo appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the court erred in excluding evidence offered to attack his plea counsel’s credibility. We affirm. FACTS Mr. Flores-Arroyo came to the United States on a tourist visa in 2013 and overstayed the visa limit. In 2017, he was charged in Chelan County with drive-by shooting, possession of methamphetamine, and alien in possession of a firearm. Mr. Flores-Arroyo’s family hired George Trejo to represent Mr. Flores-Arroyo. Mr. Trejo negotiated an agreement for Flores-Arroyo to plead guilty solely to drive-by shooting with a low end sentence recommendation. Mr. Trejo advised Mr. Flores-Arroyo that No. 36392-9-III State v. Flores-Arroyo immigration consequences were possible and that he likely would be deported if federal authorities commenced immigration proceedings. Mr. Flores-Arroyo acknowledged on the record that he could face immigration consequences from his plea. The court accepted the plea after verifying that it was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Immigration authorities commenced deportation proceedings after Mr. Flores- Arroyo completed his sentence. An immigration judge determined that the drive-by shooting constituted a “particularly serious crime” for immigration purposes and ordered his deportation. Mr. Flores-Arroyo appealed the immigration decision. While that appeal was underway, Mr. Flores-Arroyo also filed a CrR 7.8 motion to withdraw his guilty plea in Chelan County Superior Court. He argued that he received ineffective assistance of plea counsel because his attorney failed to adequately advise him about immigration consequences. He also asserted that he would have accepted a longer prison time in order to avoid deportation. The court conducted a hearing on the motion. Mr. Flores-Arroyo sought to call a past client of Mr. Trejo to testify that he had received incorrect immigration advice. The trial court found the testimony irrelevant to whether Mr. Flores-Arroyo received proper advice. The court also disallowed evidence of counsel’s bar discipline history. The trial court denied the CrR 7.8 motion because it found Mr. Flores-Arroyo was adequately advised about immigration consequences before entering his plea. The court further noted that, of the three charges Mr. Flores-Arroyo faced, the drive-by shooting 2 No. 36392-9-III State v. Flores-Arroyo charge carried the least certain immigration consequences. Mr. Trejo correctly advised his client that deportation was likely. Mr. Flores-Arroyo timely appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion. A panel considered his appeal without hearing argument. ANALYSIS The appeal presents two arguments. We first address whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea before turning to the contention that the court erred when it rejected impeachment evidence. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel We review the trial court’s decision ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals