Justice Vincent Del Guidice

Alonso moved to vacate his judgments of conviction and vacate pleas entered in 1990. He alleged he was not informed of any immigration consequences as a result of his pleas, claiming had he known he may have problems with his immigration status he would not have accepted the plea but gone to trial. The court noted Alonso was not now incarcerated and was never subjected to any action by immigration authorities. Further, it stated Alonso’s current motion was based on his unsupported assertion that his defense counsel’s failure to advise him of any potential immigrations consequences associated with his guilty pleas was per se ineffective assistance. The court disagreed, finding such claims, including a rejection of the pleas to go to trial, were not credible. It noted that Alonso was facing two consecutive indeterminate prison terms each with a maximum term of 25 years, but received concurrent sentences of six months in jail and five years of probation. It noted also former defense counsel could not be deemed ineffective for not advising Alonso about significant changes in immigration law that did not occur until six years after his plea, ruling representation was reasonable when it was provided. Thus, vacatur was denied.