Harris Ismaela Taivero appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and his guilty plea constitutes a manifest injustice.
In its slip opinion issued on Aug. 7, 2009, Supreme Court Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan, Associate Justices Alexandro C. Castro and John A. Manglona ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion of denying Taivero’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because an alien defendant’s lack of knowledge regarding the immigration consequences of a plea does not constitute a manifest injustice. The high court further held that the trial counsel’s representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Taivero entered Saipan in 1996 and worked as an entertainer in a Polynesian dance group. In 1998, he married a U.S. citizen. He then received an immediate relative status under the commonwealth immigration law. His IR status was revoked when he divorced his wife in Dec. 1999.
In May 2000, Taivero was charged with rape. Assistant Public Defender Jeffrey Moots was assigned as counsel to represent him. Taivero pleaded not guilty and maintained that the sexual contact with the complainant was consensual. Court documents showed that several days before trial, his counsel realized that his license to practice law had expired. The trial court rescheduled the trial so Taivero’s counsel could reinstate his law license.
The documents showed that during the period between the scheduled trial and the rescheduled trial, the commonwealth charged Taivero’s uncle, Mii Tekopua with obstruction of justice after he contacted the complainant which is a violation of a court order. In 2001, Taivero entered into an Alford plea agreement with the commonwealth and agreed to plead guilty to one count of rape in exchange with the commonwealth dropping all the charges against Tekupua.
Taivero was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Dec. 2001 in accordance with his plea agreement. During his incarceration, he remarried his wife. After he was released from pirson in Jan. 2005, the Division of Immigration denied his application for IR status because of his rape conviction. The commonwealth also initiated deportation proceedings based on Taivero’s felony conviction.
As a result of his impending deportation, Taivero sought to vacate his rape conviction citing ineffective assistance of counsel. He also sought to withdraw his guilty plea and claimed that his counsel did not inform him of the immigration consequences associated with the plea agreement. The trial court denied his motions.
The Supreme Court in its ruling stated that the defendant must be able to show that “the counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
The high court said the defendant failed the two-pronged test. The court also stated that a trial judge has no duty to inform alien defendants of the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
The high court further stated that “to allow non-citizen criminal defendants to challenge their guilty pleas based on the consequence of deportation will open the door to innumerable challenges to pleas based on the defendant’s ignorance of other serious collateral consequences.”
The high court said that to create a duty to advise non-citizen criminal defendants of possible immigration consequences would “overburden both attorneys and the reviewing courts.”
