Quezada v. State
This text of Quezada v. State (Quezada v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
An immigration warning, so-called, is the statutorily required warning informing defendants that a plea may affect their immigration rights. It is mandated by R.I.G.L. §
"If the court fails to so inform the defendant as required by this section, and the defendant later shows that his plea and conviction may have immigration consequences, the defendant shall be entitled, upon a proper petition for post-conviction relief, to have the plea vacated. . . ." R.I.G.L. §
12-12-22 (c).
See also Machado v. State,
The defendant has not clearly demonstrated immigration consequences but the Court is aware that he has received an adverse decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals from its other files. See Quezada v. RhodeIsland, P.M. 06-3937, Decision of January 10, 2007, page 4. Accordingly, Mr. Quezada has met his burden for post conviction relief.
By agreement, the plea and sentence of August 9, 2001 are vacated, and the matter is returned to the court for trial. The Court will enter the Consent Order. Promptly upon issuance of this Decision the clerk shall schedule this matter before the Daily Criminal Calendar for Providence County for Determination of Attorney, resetting of bail, and other scheduling matters as the Court may deem appropriate. *Page 1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Quezada v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quezada-v-state-risuperct-2007.