In 2002, Ramiro Oseguera-Garcia (Oseguera) was charged and convicted of third-degree felony theft after he stole a purse from a convenience store customer. Oseguera was working as a clerk at the convenience store when the crime occurred. Oseguera had immigrated to the United States from Mexico in 1972. Before this particular crime, Oseguera had been convicted of retail theft and was on probation. He pleaded guilty to theft on advice of counsel and was sentenced to sixty days in jail and another term of probation. Eight years later, federal immigration officers initiated deportation proceedings against Oseguera based on his third-degree felony theft charge. Oseguera then filed a petition to vacate his conviction under the PostConviction Relief Act (PRCA). His petition was based on the claim that his counsel was ineffective because he was never advised of the possibility of deportation as a result of pleading guilty. Oseguera also sought a writ of coram nobis in the alternative. The district court denied his petition, holding it was untimely. Oseguera appealed, alleging his attorney made affirmative misstatements regarding the possibility of deportation, which was different than what he argued before the district court.
At the district court, Oseguera argued he was never even told about the possibility of the deportation as a consequence to a guilty plea. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his PRCA petition. The court held Oseguera failed to preserve his claim that his attorney made misrepresentations related to the possibility of deportation. In order to preserve this claim on appeal,
Oseguera was required to raise this argument and present relevant legal authority in support of that claim. He failed to do so. Although exceptions exist to this general rule, the appellant must raise an appropriate justification for the court to hear an unpreserved objection. Oseguera failed to do this as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Oseguera’s PRCA petition. In regards to the writ of
coram nobis, the court also affirmed the district court’s denial of that writ. The
court explained writs of coram nobis are extraordinary writs and should not be used in an ordinary
case. Citing
State v. Rees, the court held a writ of
coram nobis is inappropriate for ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the PRCA “establishes the sole remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense… and replaces all prior remedies for
review, including extraordinary or common law writs.” Consequently, Oseguera’s writ for
coram nobis was properly denied.
Oseguera v. State, 2014 UT 31.
