FILED JANUARY 28, 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WASHINGTON, ) No. 36109-8-III ) (consolidated with Respondent, ) No. 36425-9-III) ) v. ) ) MARIA FRANCISCA CONTRERAS, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) ) ) In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of ) ) MARIA FRANCISCA CONTRERAS, ) ) Petitioner. ) SIDDOWAY, J. — Post-Padilla v. Kentucky,1 we are presented with another contention that a criminal defense lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise a client of immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Maria Francisca Contreras seeks relief from personal restraint in the form of her 2003 conviction of welfare fraud—a type of first degree theft that requires willfully fraudulent conduct— supported by a declaration that her trial lawyer failed to advise her that the plea would 1 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010). Nos. 36109-8-III; 36425-9-III State v. Contreras; In re Pers. Restraint of Contreras render her inadmissible and ineligible to file for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, her “one chance to remain in the United States.” Personal Restraint Petition (PRP) at 5. Given a persuasive showing that Ms. Contreras’s lawyer knew or could have determined that the adverse immigration consequence was material to Ms. Contreras, that the consequence was truly clear, that the lawyer failed to research and advise Ms. Contreras of the clear consequence, and a reasonable reason to believe that Ms. Contreras would have taken her chances at trial, we grant Ms. Contreras her requested relief and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2003, Maria Francisca Contreras was charged with first degree theft (welfare fraud), first degree identity theft, and witness tampering. The charges arose from Ms. Contreras’s application for and receipt of food stamps and public assistance, which she supported with false, sworn, representations. The Department of Social and Health Services discovered after several years that Ms. Contreras’s husband was employed during the period she received public assistance and that Social Security numbers she used did not belong to her husband or herself. When confronted, Ms. Contreras admitted that her husband signed the documents because she told him they were for medical coupons. 2 Nos. 36109-8-III; 36425-9-III State v. Contreras; In re Pers. Restraint of Contreras Gail Siemers was appointed to represent Ms. Contreras, who originally entered a plea of not guilty. Two months later, Ms. Contreras pleaded guilty to the count of first degree theft under RCW 9A.56.030(1)(a) and 74.08.331. The latter provision imposes criminal liability for only willful or fraudulent conduct. The plea agreement identified the standard range for Ms. Contreras as 0-60 days and the State’s recommendation that she serve 15 days, converted to work crew or community service. It included the State’s recommendation to dismiss the other two counts if Ms. Contreras paid back half the money she ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals