MIGUEZ A. GUARDADO
STATE OF MARYLAND
KRAUSER, C.J., ZARNOCH, KEHOE, JJ.
Miguez A. Guardado appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. He presents three issues which we have reworded slightly:
1. Whether the circuit court erred in holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), were not cognizable claims in coram nobis proceedings?
2. Whether the circuit court failed to apply the correct prejudice standard to the appellant's Strickland ineffective assistance of counsel claim?
3. Whether the circuit court erred in holding that the trial court's collateral consequences advisements pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-242(e) could "cure" what would otherwise be ineffective assistance of counsel at a guilty plea proceeding?
We are satisfied that the circuit court reached the correct result. Therefore, we will affirm its judgment, although our reasoning differs from that of the court. See Offutt v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 285 Md. 557, 564 n.4 (1979) ("[A]n appellate court may affirm a trial court's decision on any ground adequately shown by the record.").
On May 7, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Guardado pled guilty to conspiracy to commit theft over $500. Guardado was represented by counsel during the guilty plea proceeding. The court accepted his plea and sentenced Guardado to imprisonment for one year with all but two days suspended, subject to one year of supervised probation and Guardado's payment of restitution to the victim.
While receiving Guardado's plea, in relevant part, the circuit court advised Guardado as follows:
The Court: I am not asking about your citizenship, but I am telling you [that] if you are not a United States citizen[, ] this case may affect your status in this country. This case may lead to other consequences such as deportation. If you have concerns in that area you should speak to your attorney before entering this guilty plea. Do you understand that?
After the court's advisement, Guardado did not request an opportunity to confer with his counsel before entering the guilty plea. Guardado neither filed a motion to withdraw the plea pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-242(f) nor filed an application for leave to appeal pursuant to Md. Code Ann. (2006) § 12-302(e) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and Maryland Rule 8-204.
Thereafter, the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") initiated removal proceedings against Guardado, asserting that he was subject to removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(i). On May 5, 2011, Guardado was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") as a result of his guilty plea.
On July 13, 2011, Guardado, represented by different counsel, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to Maryland Rule 15-1202. He asserted that his conspiracy conviction caused him to be detained by ICE and barred him from filing a petition for asylum. Additionally, he claimed that his guilty plea was entered in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution because his then-attorney had failed to advise him about the immigration consequences of the plea. Guardado asserted that, had he known ...