from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John J.
Alvarez Mendoza appeals a district court order denying his
writ of habeas corpus.
Benjamin D. Bergmann and Alexander D. Smith of Parrish
Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble Gentry Brown & Bergmann
L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, PRESIDING JUDGE
person whose judgment was deferred and who successfully
discharged probation asks us to go a step beyond a recent
Iowa Supreme Court opinion and hold the denial of habeas
corpus as an avenue for relief is unconstitutional.
Alvarez Mendoza pled guilty to possession of marijuana.
His written plea included a waiver of his right to have the
district court personally inform him of certain consequences
of the plea, including "the [e]ffect of the plea on
[his] status under federal immigration laws." The
district court accepted the guilty plea, ordered judgment to
be deferred, and placed him on unsupervised probation for a
term not exceeding one year.
the same year, a federal immigration judge ordered Alvarez
"removed from the United States to Mexico" based on
his guilty plea to possession of marijuana and his placement
on unsupervised probation. The decision was affirmed by the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
filed a "petition for writ of habeas corpus, or in the
alternative, petition for writ of coram
nobis." He alleged he "was misadvised by his
prior counsel regarding the immigration consequences of his
guilty plea" and he was "ordered deported, based
wholly on the quasi-conviction in question." He further
alleged he could not raise the issue through a postconviction
relief application because he received a deferred judgment
and successfully discharged probation.
an evidentiary hearing, Alvarez filed an amended petition
alleging additional grounds for relief. The district court
allowed the amendment and denied relief. Alvarez moved for
enlarged findings and conclusions. The court denied the
motion. This appeal followed.