State v. Sandoval
Annotate this CaseIn 2004, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine. After Defendant had served the sentence for his offense Defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asserting that neither the district court nor defense counsel advised him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and arguing that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. The district court denied relief, concluding that Defendant’s claims were not based upon an error of fact that could be addressed via a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the failure of a court to advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere prior to acceptance of the plea cannot serve as the basis for a writ of error coram nobis.
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.