Estrada v. State
Annotate this CaseAppellant, a legal, permanent resident of the United States, pled guilty to one count of maintaining a drug premise. Later, Appellant was placed in a removal proceeding in immigration court. Appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asserting that his trial counsel never informed him of the possible adverse immigration consequences that could result if he pled guilty to the charge. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition, finding that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim could have been raised in a petition for postconviction relief and did not provide a basis for coram-nobis relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.