Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
September 15, 2026
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 60614-3-II Consolidated with
Respondent,
v.
No. 61214-3-II
JAIME MALDONADO CAMPOS,
Appellant.
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of:
JAIME MALDONADO CAMPOS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Petitioner.
MAXA, J. – In this consolidated appeal and personal restraint petition (PRP), Jaime Maldonado Campos challenges his conviction of delivery of a controlled substance following a guilty plea. Maldonado Campos argues that his guilty plea is invalid because even though he was advised that if convicted he would be deported, he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his defense counsel did not give him certain specific immigration advice – that a conviction would subject him to expedited deportation, bar him from applying for relief from
2
deportation in immigration court, make him inadmissible to the United States in the future, and prevent him from obtaining lawful permanent resident status.
We hold that Maldonado Campos does not establish that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction and deny his PRP.
FACTS
On multiple occasions in September and October of 2013, confidential informants working with law enforcement officers in Longview purchased heroin from Maldonado Campos. The State charged Maldonado Campos with three counts of delivery of a controlled substance, two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The parties reached a plea agreement under which Maldonado Campos agreed to plead guilty to two counts of delivery of a controlled substance and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts.
Represented by counsel, Maldonado Campos pleaded guilty to two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. In his plea statement, Maldonado Campos stated that on two occasions he had delivered heroin knowing that the substance was heroin.
Paragraph 6(i) of Maldonado Campos’s guilty plea statement stated, “If I am not a citizen of the United States, a plea of guilty to an offense punishable as a crime under state law is grounds for deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 13. Paragraph 12 stated, “My lawyer has explained to me, and we have fully discussed, all of the above paragraphs . . . . I understand them all.” CP at 18. Maldonado Campos signed immediately under paragraph 12. Defense counsel signed under a paragraph stating, “I have read and discussed this statement with the defendant. I believe that the defendant is competent and fully
3
understands the statement.” CP at 18. An interpreter signed under a declaration confirming that she was a certified Spanish language interpreter and that she interpreted the document for Maldonado Campos from English to Spanish.
The trial court conducted a hearing regarding the guilty plea. A court-certified Spanish interpreter was present. Before accepting Maldonado Campos’s pleas, the trial court explained both counts to Maldonado Campos, and Maldonado Campos confirmed that he understood the charges. During this colloquy, the court stated to Maldonado Campos, “[I]f you’re not a citizen of this country, you will be deported because of these convictions.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 6. The court asked Maldonado Campos whether his statement about delivering heroin in the plea statement was true, and Maldonado Campos stated that it was. The court accepted both of Maldonado Campos’s guilty pleas. The court sentenced Maldonado Campos to 16 months of confinement on each conviction to run concurrently.
In his PRP, Maldonado Campos provided additional evidence through a declaration from himself and a letter from his former defense counsel. In his declaration, Maldonado Campos alleged that his former defense counsel “did not advise me that my conviction would subject me to expedited deportation from the United States, bar me from applying for relief from deportation in immigration court, make me inadmissible to the United States in the future, and prevent me from obtaining lawful permanent resident status.” PRP, App. A at 5. Maldonado Campos further stated, “Had I been aware of these consequences I would have refused to plead guilty.” PRP, App. A at 5.
Maldonado Campos’s former defense counsel’s letter stated that he had little or no recollection of Maldonado Campos, but that he advises of immigration consequences in “any and
4
every offense.” PRP, App. C. He stated, “It is not probable I failed to advise of immigration consequences in this instance.” PRP, App. C.
Maldonado Campos appeals his conviction in his direct appeal and seeks relief in his PRP.1 ANALYSIS
A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Ineffective assistance of counsel is a constitutional error arising from the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution. State v. Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d 116, 128, 546 P.3d 1020 (2024). To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must show that (1) defense counsel’s representation was deficient and (2) the deficient representation prejudiced the defendant. Id. When considering an ineffective assistance claim on appeal, the court “may consider only facts contained in the record.” State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450, 467, 395 P.3d 1045 (2017).
Representation is deficient if, after considering all the circumstances, it falls below an objective standard of reasonableness. State v. Vasquez, 198 Wn.2d 239, 247-48, 494 P.3d 424 (2021). We apply a strong presumption that defense counsel’s performance was reasonable. Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d at 128. The defendant bears the burden to overcome the presumption of reasonableness. Id. at 130.
A defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel extends to plea negotiations. State v. Sprague, 16 Wn. App. 2d 213, 237, 480 P.3d 471 (2021). The right to effective assistance of
1 Although Maldonado Campos’s conviction was in 2013, this court granted his motion to enlarge the time to file an appeal because the trial court did not advise him that he had a right to appeal his conviction. As a result, his PRP also is timely.
5
counsel in plea negotiations includes the obligation to assist the defendant in making an informed decision regarding whether to plead guilty or to proceed to trial. Estes, 188 Wn.2d at 464.
Prejudice exists if there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial but for defense counsel’s deficient performance. In re Pers. Restraint of Garcia-Mendoza, 196 Wn.2d 836, 845, 479 P.3d 674 (2021).
2. Advice Regarding Immigration Consequences a. RCW 10.40.200
RCW 10.40.200, enacted long before the cases discussed below, provides that noncitizen criminal defendants must be advised of certain immigration consequences before entering a guilty plea. RCW 10.40.200(2) states:
Prior to acceptance of a plea of guilty to any offense punishable as a crime under state law, . . . the court shall determine that the defendant has been advised of the following potential consequences of conviction for a defendant who is not a citizen of the United States: Deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.
A defendant who does not receive this advice is entitled to withdraw their guilty plea. RCW 10.40.200(2).
The Supreme Court in In re Personal Restraint of Tsai emphasized that “RCW 10.40.200’s plain language gives noncitizen defendants the unequivocal right to advice regarding immigration consequences and necessarily imposes a correlative duty on defense counsel to ensure that advice is provided.” 183 Wn.2d 91, 101, 351 P.3d 138 (2015). The failure to ensure that this advice is provided constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. See id. at 102-03, 107. And “where a defendant relies on [their] attorney’s incorrect advice about the immigration
6
consequences of pleading guilty, the defendant’s plea may be rendered involuntary and withdrawn.” Id. at 107.
A statement in a standard plea agreement form warning noncitizen defendants of possible immigration consequences “is not, itself, the required advice.” Id. at 101. However, this warning “creates a rebuttable presumption the defendant has been properly advised.” Id.
b. Applicable Cases
In addition to RCW 10.40.200, the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel requires that a noncitizen criminal defendant be advised of the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010). Where immigration law is clear that the charged offense is deportable, defense counsel must correctly advise the defendant that pleading guilty would result in deportation. Id. at 368-69. Where the law is not straightforward, defense counsel “need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” Id. at 369. Both the failure to give any advice and incorrect advice can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 370-71. The Court in Padilla concluded, “[W]e now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.” Id. at 374.
In Padilla, defense counsel incorrectly told the defendant that he did not have to worry about his immigration status if he pleaded guilty to drug charges. Id. at 359. In fact, the defendant’s guilty plea made deportation virtually mandatory. Id. The Court concluded that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance because “[t]he consequences of Padilla’s plea could easily be determined from reading the removal statute, his deportation was presumptively mandatory, and his counsel’s advice was incorrect.” Id. at 369
7
In State v. Sandoval, our Supreme Court summarized the holding in Padilla that defense counsel must advise a defendant regarding immigration consequences. 171 Wn.2d 163, 170, 249 P.3d 1015 (2011). The court stated, “In other words, even if immigration law does not reveal clearly whether the offense is deportable, competent counsel informs the defendant that deportation is at least possible, along with exclusion, ineligibility for citizenship, and any other adverse immigration consequences.” Id.
In Sandoval, defense counsel advised the defendant to plead guilty to a third degree rape charge because he would not be deported immediately. Id. at 167. The court determined that that federal law was clear that a guilty plea to third degree rape would subject the defendant to deportation. Id. at 172. The court held that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance because the attorney’s advice left the defendant with the impression that deportation was a remote possibility. Id. at 173.
The defendant’s guilty plea statement in Sandoval contained the same warnings about immigration consequences as in Maldonado Campos’s guilty plea statement, and the defendant acknowledged that his defense counsel had reviewed the statement with him. Id. at 167. But the court concluded that these warnings “cannot save the advice that counsel gave.” Id. at 173. The court stated, “The required advice about immigration consequences would be a useless formality if, in the next breath, counsel could give the noncitizen defendant the impression that he or she should disregard what counsel just said about the risk of immigration consequences.” Id. The court also noted that Padilla found that “such warnings do not excuse defense attorneys from providing the requisite warnings.” Id.
8
B. DIRECT APPEAL In his direct appeal, Maldonado Campos argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel failed to advise him of certain specific immigration consequences of his guilty plea. We disagree because the trial court record does not support this claim.
In his direct appeal brief, Maldonado Campos alleges that his defense counsel failed to advise him regarding certain specific immigration consequences. But for purposes of his direct appeal, we can consider only the evidence in the trial court record. Estes, 188 Wn.2d at 467. Nothing in the trial court record shows that defense counsel failed to advise Maldonado Campos regarding these consequences. Maldonado Campos’s argument is based solely on evidence outside the record – his PRP declaration. Based on the trial court record, Maldonado Campos does not sustain his burden to show that his counsel was ineffective. In fact, Maldonado Campos does not point to any evidence in the trial court record to rebut the strong presumption that his defense counsel’s performance was reasonable.
Accordingly, we hold that Maldonado Campos does not establish on direct appeal that his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. C. PERSONAL RESTRAINT PETITION In his PRP, Maldonado Campos raises the same argument as in his direct appeal: that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not informed of certain specific immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Even considering evidence outside of the trial court record, Maldonado Campos cannot show that his defense counsel’s performance was deficient.
9
1. PRP Principles To prevail in a PRP, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence (1)
a constitutional error that resulted in actual and substantial prejudice or (2) a fundamental defect of a nonconstitutional nature that inherently resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice. In re Pers. Restraint of Meredith, 191 Wn.2d 300, 306, 422 P.3d 458 (2018).
The legal principles for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal stated above are the same for a PRP. See In re Pers. Restraint of Crace, 174 Wn.2d 835, 842-44, 280 P.3d 1102 (2012). A petitioner who successfully demonstrates both deficient performance and resulting prejudice in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim necessarily has shown actual and substantial prejudice sufficient to obtain collateral relief. State v. K.A.B., 14 Wn. App. 2d 677, 707-08, 475 P.3d 216 (2020).
Unlike a direct appeal, where we only can consider facts contained in the trial court record, evidence outside the record may be relied on in a personal restraint petition. Estes, 188 Wn.2d at 467. Therefore, we can consider the statements in Maldonado Campos’s declaration for purposes of his PRP.
2. Analysis The record shows that Maldonado Campos was advised of certain immigration consequences of pleading guilty. In paragraph 6(i) of Maldonado Campos’s guilty plea statement, he expressly acknowledged that if he was a noncitizen, a guilty plea would be “grounds for deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization.” CP at 13. This is the exact language required in RCW 10.40.200(2). Maldonado Campos certified that he had discussed all the paragraphs of his guilty plea statement
10
with defense counsel and understood them all. This created a rebuttable presumption that Maldonado Campos was properly advised. Tsai, 183 Wn.2d at 101.
In addition, before accepting Maldonado Campos’s guilty plea, the trial court advised him on the record with an interpreter present that if he was not a citizen, he would be deported because of his convictions. And his defense counsel’s letter states that it was not probable that he failed to advise Maldonado Campos of immigration consequences.
Significantly, Maldonado Campos does not argue that he received no advice regarding immigration consequences. And he does not argue that defense counsel gave him incorrect advice as in Padilla and Sandoval. Instead, he argues that the immigration advice he did receive was not specific enough. Maldonado Campos’s declaration states,
[M]y attorney did not advise me that my conviction would subject me to expedited deportation from the United States, bar me from applying for relief from deportation in immigration court, make me inadmissible to the United States in the future, and prevent me from obtaining lawful permanent resident status.
PRP, App. A at 5. He argues that the failure to provide this specific immigration advice constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.2 RCW 10.40.200(2) does not support this argument. That statute requires only that a defendant be advised regarding “[d]eportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization.” Maldonado Campos provides no allegation that defense counsel failed to advise him of these consequences. And the guilty plea statement contained warnings regarding these consequences, and Maldonado Campos acknowledged that he had discussed the plea agreement terms with defense counsel.
2 We note that Maldonado Campos’s claim that he would not have pleaded guilty had he received more specific immigration advice is somewhat specious when he was willing to plead guilty even after the trial court told him that he would be deported because of his convictions.
11
Padilla also does not support Maldonado Campos’s argument. The Court in Padilla stated only that a defendant must be informed that a guilty plea would result in deportation (if the law is clear) or may involve the risk of adverse immigration consequences (if the law is unclear). 559 U.S. at 368-69. The Court held that “counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.” Id. at 374. Maldonado Campos provides no evidence that defense counsel failed to advise him that he could be deported if he pleaded guilty. And the record shows that the trial court expressly informed Maldonado Campos that “if you’re not a citizen of this country, you will be deported because of these convictions.” RP at 6.
Finally, Sandoval does not support this argument. The court stated that defense counsel must inform the defendant that “deportation is at least possible, along with exclusion, ineligibility for citizenship, and any other adverse immigration consequences.” 171 Wn.2d at 170. The court did not explain what it meant by the phase “any other immigration consequences,” but the court did not require defense counsel to provide any specific immigration advice other than deportation, exclusion from the United States, and ineligibility for citizenship. Id. And the court found ineffective assistance of counsel not because defense counsel failed to give specific immigration advice, but because defense counsel’s “categorical assurances” regarding deportation consequences were incorrect. Id. at 174.
Maldonado Campos provides no authority for the proposition that defense counsel is required to provide any specific immigration advice beyond the possibility of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. In the absence of such authority, we decline to hold that defense counsel has an obligation to inform a noncitizen of immigration consequences beyond what RCW 10.40.200 and our case law already requires.
12
Accordingly, we hold that Maldonado Campos fails to establish ineffective assistance of counsel in his PRP.
CONCLUSION
We affirm Maldonado Campos’s conviction and deny his PRP.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
MAXA, J.
We concur:
PRICE, A.C.J.
LEE, J.