Diaz v. The State

Defendant could not show that he was prejudiced by his attorney's alleged deficiency in failing to properly inform him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to possession of a controlled substance and he, therefore, could not prove his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and the trial court properly denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

McFadden, Presiding Judge.Jose Soriano Diaz appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that his attorney’s failure to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of the plea led him to plead guilty. Because Diaz has not demonstrated that any deficiency in counsel’s performance resulted in prejudice, we affirm.

“When a criminal defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, the ineffective assistance claim must be evaluated under the twoprong test set out in Strickland v. Washington[, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (III) (104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984).]“ Gomez v. State, 300 Ga. 571, 572 (797 SE2d 478) (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). Even when the trial court fails to make specific findings on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “remand is not mandated if we can determine from the record that the defendant cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the twoprong test set forth in Strickland.” Burrell v. State, 301 Ga. 21, 24 (2) (799 SE2d 181) (2017) (citation omitted). When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “we accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.” Suggs v. State, 272 Ga. 85, 88 (4) (526 SE2d 347) (2000). This court reviews a denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. Franklin v. State, 291 Ga. App. 267 (1) (661 SE2d 870) (2008).Diaz is a citizen of the Dominican Republic. On June 24, 2015, Diaz was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence of alcohol. The case proceeded to trial, and on June 7, 2016, after jury selection had begun, Diaz entered a guilty plea to both charges. Diaz’s guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance subjects him to mandatory removal from the United States. See 8 USC § 1227 (2) (B) (i).

Diaz v. The State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report