State v. Montque

── State v. Montque ── Court: Superior Court of Delaware Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE STAE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ) DADRIQUE MONTQUE, ) I.D. No. 2502009481 ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This 24th day of April 2026, the Court enters the following Order: 1. The issue before the Court is quite discrete. The Defendant pled guilty to Robbery Second Degree and Conspiracy Second Degree, which triggered a violation of his probation from a prior misdemeanor conviction for Receiving Stolen Property. 1 He has filed a Rule 61 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of his guilty 0F plea counsel because, unknown to his counsel, the Defendant was a lawful permanent resident in the U.S., but a native of Jamica. 2 As a result of his guilty plea, 1F immigration authorities have initiated mandatory deportation proceedings. 3 He says 2F 1 State v. Montque, Superior Court Criminal Docket, ID No. 2502009481, Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I. _”) 7. 2 D.I. 17, 18. 3 D.I. 18, Ex. 3. guilty plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. 2. The principal in play was articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky. 4 There, the defendant and his lawyer were acutely aware of his 3F immigrant status and his lawyer incorrectly advised him that he did not have to worry about deportation consequences in pleading guilty. 5 4F The Padilla case thus established a duty to advise non-citizens that a plea could well have immigration consequences. 6 5F 3. That is not exactly the question here: Defendant’s guilty plea counsel did not know that Defendant was not a citizen, and thus did not offer any advice on the immigration consequences since, so far as he knew, there were none. 4. In order to qualify for relief under Rule 61, the Defendant must demonstrate that guilty plea counsel’s representation was so ineffective as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. 7 6F 5. The present iteration of this Court’s Truth in Sentencing guilty plea form includes a specific, italicized notification that a guilty plea may subject a 4 559 U.S. 356 (2010). 5 Id. at 359. 6 Id. at 376. 7 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2 defendant to deportation or other immigration consequences. 8 Indeed, this specific 7F notification is likely a direct result of the Supreme Court’s Padilla decision. 6. Defendant’s guilty plea counsel has supplemented the record with an affidavit denying any knowledge that the Defendant was not a citizen of the U.S. 9 8F He further swore that his routine practice is to mark the italicized disclaimer concerning immigration status “N/A” when reviewing the form with his clients in cases where his client informs him that he is a U.S. citizen and so the question is “not applicable” to him. 10 9F 7. In the guilty plea colloquy between the Court and the Defendant, the subject of where he was “from” was specifically discussed and Defendant spoke only of his home in New York. 11 He gave the Court no hint that he was not a U.S. 10F citizen. 8. In an