Background
Luilly Rodriguez-Montaner pleaded guilty in 2015 to charges involving receiving stolen property and engaging in organized crime, then received a probated sentence. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him immediately after the plea and later placed him under an order of supervision. He asserted that he remained subject to federal supervision and the possibility of deportation.
After completing probation in 2021, Rodriguez-Montaner obtained an order in 2024 setting aside and expunging the state case. In 2026, he filed another motion under Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure 11.42 and Civil Procedure Rule 60.02, alleging that counsel had failed to discover his noncitizen status, advise him about the plea’s immigration consequences, or tell him that relief might be available after ICE became involved. The circuit court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, and Rodriguez-Montaner appealed pro se.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that RCr 11.42 was unavailable because Rodriguez-Montaner was no longer in custody under sentence or serving probation, parole, or conditional discharge. His continuing ICE supervision did not place him within the state rule’s eligibility requirements.
The court also held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying CR 60.02 relief. The 2026 motion was an impermissible successive post-judgment motion and was not filed within a reasonable time because Rodriguez-Montaner knew of the immigration problem long before filing it, and certainly by the time of his 2024 motion. Even if the motion had been timely, no evidentiary hearing was required because the state case had already been set aside and expunged, leaving no further state-court relief capable of addressing ICE’s application of federal immigration law.
Key Takeaways
- RCr 11.42 relief is unavailable once a defendant is no longer in custody under the sentence or serving probation, parole, or conditional discharge.
- CR 60.02 does not permit successive post-judgment motions, and relief must be sought within a reasonable time.
- A movant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing without alleging facts and special circumstances that, if proven, would justify vacating the judgment.
- After a state conviction has been set aside and expunged, disputes over ICE supervision or deportation consequences generally must be directed to federal authorities applying federal law.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the procedural limits on using Kentucky’s post-conviction rules to revisit a plea after the sentence has ended and the case has already been expunged. Defendants seeking relief from immigration consequences must raise all available challenges promptly rather than pursue successive motions after an earlier remedy proves ineffective.
It also distinguishes relief available from a state criminal court from relief concerning federal immigration enforcement: setting aside and expunging the state case exhausted what the state court could do, even if federal authorities continued to treat the original plea as relevant.