The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a district court's denial of postconviction relief to a non-citizen defendant who claimed his attorney provided ineffective counsel regarding immigration consequences of his guilty plea.

In *Duffi v. State* (N.D. 2025), Koffi Mande Yi Noum Duffi appealed an order from the District Court of Burleigh County denying his application for postconviction relief. The case centers on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to immigration advice provided during plea negotiations.

Duffi, who is not a United States citizen, pleaded guilty to various crimes including burglary. After his conviction, he sought to withdraw his guilty pleas through a postconviction relief application. His central argument was that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense attorney provided incorrect immigration advice regarding the consequences of his guilty plea.

According to court documents, Duffi claimed that avoiding deportation was essential to his decision to enter the guilty plea. He argued that had he known the true immigration consequences of a burglary conviction, he would have chosen to go to trial rather than accept the plea agreement.

The legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims stems from the Supreme Court's decision in *Strickland v. Washington* (1984). Under this two-pronged test, a defendant must demonstrate both that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.

The district court, presided over by Judge Lindsey R. Nieuwsma, found that Duffi failed to meet either prong of the *Strickland* test. The court determined that Duffi had not sufficiently established that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficient performance.

The North Dakota Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the district court's decision. The state's highest court agreed that Duffi had not met the stringent requirements for proving ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of plea negotiations.

This case highlights the intersection of criminal law and immigration consequences, an area that has gained increased attention in recent years. The Supreme Court addressed similar issues in *Padilla v. Kentucky* (2010), which held that defense counsel has a duty to inform non-citizen clients about the immigration consequences of guilty pleas when those consequences are clear.

However, the *Padilla* decision did not automatically make all immigration-related counsel deficiencies grounds for successful ineffective assistance claims. Courts must still analyze each case under the *Strickland* framework, examining both the reasonableness of counsel's performance and whether any deficiency actually prejudiced the defendant's decision-making process.

The burden on defendants in postconviction proceedings is particularly high. They must present clear and convincing evidence that they would have made different decisions but for counsel's alleged errors. In plea bargain contexts, this often requires defendants to demonstrate they would have rejected favorable plea offers and risked potentially harsher sentences at trial.

For non-citizen defendants facing criminal charges, the immigration consequences of convictions can be severe and long-lasting. Certain convictions, particularly those classified as aggravated felonies under federal immigration law, can result in mandatory detention and removal proceedings with limited avenues for relief.

Burglary convictions, depending on their specific elements and the sentence imposed, may qualify as aggravated felonies under federal immigration law. This classification can have devastating consequences for non-citizens, including permanent inadmissibility to the United States and bars to various forms of immigration relief.

The case was argued by Jamie L. Schaible of Fargo representing Duffi, while Assistant State's Attorney Justin J. Schwarz of Bismarck represented the state. The appeal originated from Burleigh County's South Central Judicial District.

This decision reinforces the high bar defendants face when challenging guilty pleas based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. While the Supreme Court has recognized that counsel must advise clients about immigration consequences when they are clear, proving that deficient advice actually influenced a defendant's plea decision remains challenging.

The ruling also underscores the importance of thorough immigration consequence analysis in criminal defense representation, particularly given the potentially irreversible effects of certain convictions on non-citizen defendants' ability to remain in the United States.

For defense attorneys representing non-citizen clients, the case serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between criminal and immigration law and the need for accurate advice about potential consequences before plea negotiations conclude.