Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealpleamotionwilldeportationguilty plea
attorneytrialpleamotiondeportationguilty plea

Related Cases

Li Wang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Gao v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Eyoum v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Shaughnessy v. Accardi
View Case »
Susma, Matter of
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shata; State v.

Facts

Hatem Shata, an Egyptian foreign national, was charged with possession with intent to deliver marijuana. After being informed by his attorney that there was a strong chance of deportation if he pled guilty, Shata entered a guilty plea. He later sought to withdraw his plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because he believed he should have been informed that deportation was mandatory upon conviction. The circuit court denied his motion, and the court of appeals reversed this decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

Shata is an Egyptian foreign national and is not a United States citizen. He has been living in the United States since approximately 1991. In December 2011 he opened a coffee shop called the Sphinx Caf located in Milwaukee.

Issue

Did Shata receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney advised him that his guilty plea carried a 'strong chance' of deportation instead of stating that it would result in mandatory deportation?

Shata argues that the circuit court erred [****2] by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010).

Rule

Under Padilla v. Kentucky, an attorney must provide correct advice regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, but is not required to guarantee that deportation will occur.

Shata's attorney was required to 'give correct advice' to Shata about the possible immigration consequences of his conviction. Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Shata's attorney's advice met the standard set by Padilla. It concluded that the attorney's warning about the strong possibility of deportation was sufficient and did not constitute ineffective assistance. The court noted that deportation was not an absolute certainty and that the attorney's performance did not fall below the standard of care required.

We conclude that Shata is not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Shata's attorney did not perform deficiently. Shata's attorney was required to 'give correct advice' to Shata about the possible immigration consequences of his conviction. Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369. Shata's attorney satisfied that requirement by correctly advising Shata that [**70] his guilty plea carried a 'strong chance' of deportation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the court of appeals' decision, holding that Shata was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea as he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

Accordingly, the circuit court denied Shata's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and issued a written order to that effect on July 15, 2013.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court found that Shata's attorney provided effective assistance by informing him of the strong possibility of deportation, which was sufficient under the law.

The State argues that the circuit court correctly denied Shata's post-conviction motion because his trial counsel did provide effective assistance. The State argues that Shata's attorney did not perform deficiently.

You must be