Defendant to be advised by court
- inquiry into immigration status prohibited
Source:
Section 135.385 — Defendant to be advised by court; inquiry into immigration status prohibited, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors135.html.
Notes of Decisions
Failure to advise defendant that conviction could result in deportation or exclusion is harmless error where defendant 1) was represented by counsel, entered plea as result of plea agreement and did not raise issue at trial; or 2) appears in record of case not to be alien. State v. Collins, 51 Or App 651, 626 P2d 929 (1981); State v. Vickroy, 51 Or App 659, 626 P2d 932 (1981); State v. Frizell, 51 Or App 763, 627 P2d 21 (1981); Gaffey v. State of Oregon, 55 Or App 186, 637 P2d 634 (1981)
Where defendant has prior criminal history that would expose alien to deportation or exclusion, failure to instruct that deportation or exclusion is possible consequence of guilty plea by alien defendant is harmless error. State v. Frizell, 51 Or App 763, 627 P2d 21 (1981)
Court is not required to advise of collateral civil consequences of guilty plea, such as mandatory loss of driver license. Gaffey v. State of Oregon, 55 Or App 186, 637 P2d 634 (1981)
Imposition of sentence not including jail time does not excuse failure to advise defendant of maximum possible sentence. Gaffey v. State of Oregon, 55 Or App 186, 637 P2d 634 (1981)
This section requires court to address defendant personally to determine understanding of nature of charge, and statement to all in court room that, “the rest of you in custody should listen carefully because these rights will apply to you as well...” and making no mention of consequences of “no contest” plea fell short of statutory requirement. State v. Dawson, 57 Or App 420, 644 P2d 665 (1982)
Where noncitizen defendant has already been informed that conviction may result in deportation, court is not required to orally inform defendant of possibility before accepting guilty plea. Lyons v. Pearce, 298 Or 554, 694 P2d 969 (1985)
This section was intended to lead trial court through catechism that would insure that defendant’s waiver of constitutional rights would be valid and supply basis for constitutionally valid plea of guilty. Stelts v. State, 299 Or 252, 701 P2d 1047 (1985)
Where juvenile is charged with and admits to act that if committed by adult would be crime resulting in possible confinement for five years and court’s advice is insufficient regarding nature of charge and consequences of admission, child cannot be deemed to have made knowing waiver and juvenile court erred in not setting admission aside. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Clements, 95 Or App 640, 770 P2d 937 (1989)
Up to date