Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Manchester District Court No. 2011-446 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. DEICY URENA ORTIZ Argued: October 13, 2011 Opinion Issued: April 10, 2012 Michael A. Delaney, attorney general (Nicholas Cort, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State. Michael J. Sheehan, of Concord, by brief and orally, for the defendant. CONBOY, J. The defendant, Deicy Urena Ortiz, appeals the Manchester District Court's (Lyons, J.) denial of her motion to withdraw her plea and vacate her misdemeanor conviction. On appeal, she contends her plea was not knowing because the court did not advise her of its potential adverse immigration consequences. We affirm. The following facts are drawn from the record. The defendant has been a lawful resident of the United States since 2002. In November 2007, she was charged with the class A misdemeanor of shoplifting. On November 28, 2007, she appeared before the Manchester District Court (Lyons, J.) and entered a plea of nolo contendere. She was not represented by counsel. The defendant

signed a standard acknowledgment and waiver of rights form, which, at the time, contained no acknowledgment of the potential adverse immigration consequences of entering either a guilty or nolo plea. During the plea colloquy, the court did not advise the defendant that her plea could result in adverse immigration consequences. In March 2011, the federal government commenced removal proceedings against the defendant, contending that her shoplifting conviction constituted "a crime involving moral turpitude," a deportable offense. See 8 U.S.C.

Download 2011-446, State of New Hampshire v. Deicy Urena Ortiz.pdf

New Hampshire Law