A lawyer for a 28-year-old Minot man who pleaded guilty to killing his brother two years ago says a judge was wrong to deny his motion to withdraw his guilty plea last fall.

Kiara Kraus-Parr, a defense attorney for Adolfo Contreras-Castillo, will argue to the state supreme court today that Contreras-Castillo’s previous defense attorney did not adequately inform him regarding the implications a guilty plea would have for his immigration status. Contreras-Castillo also argues that he was coerced by his lawyer into entering the guilty plea and that he believes he stabbed his brother in self-defense.

Contreras-Castillo admitted in court to stabbing his older brother, Ignacio Contreras-Castillo, to death on March 1, 2016, during an argument at their northwest Minot home.

In her written argument to the state supreme court, Ward County State’s Attorney Roza Larson argues that Contreras-Castillo was told at his initial appearance that a guilty plea could result in deportation for a foreign national and that he had a right to have his consulate notified. Contreras-Castillo also said he understood his rights, Larson wrote.

Kraus-Parr argues that a “general warning” about possible deportation was not sufficient and Contreras-Castillo was not advised of the immigration consequences prior to his guilty plea. His then defense attorney, Kyle Melia, also did not consult with an immigration lawyer regarding Contreras-Castillo’s specific case.

“Because of his attorney’s failure to properly explain the consequences … of a conviction for a defendant who is not a United States citizen and the court’s failure to substantially comply (with rules of evidence), Mr. Contreras-Castillo was unable to make a knowing, voluntary and intelligent change of his not guilty plea,” wrote Kraus-Parr. “Additionally, Mr. Contreras-Castilo repeatedly told the sentencing court that he believed his actions were done in self-defense, that he did not want to plea guilty, that he did not understand the charge, and that his attorney said he had to plead guilty … Under the totality of the circumstances, it is clear that Mr. Contreras-Castillo’s change of plea was not voluntary.”

Larson noted that Judge Todd Cresap carefully explained to Contreras-Castillo that he did not have to plead guilty or accept the terms of the binding plea agreement with the state. He had the option of pleading not guilty and going to trial or entering an open plea, which would have meant Cresap could have sentenced him as he chose, including up to life in prison without parole. Contreras-Castillo chose to accept the plea deal, which was 50 years in prison, with 15 years suspended, followed by five years of supervised probation. He is required to serve 85 percent of the sentence.

Contreras-Castillo later filed a motion asking to withdraw his guilty plea, which Cresap later denied. Cresap also ruled that Melia had adequately explained the immigration issue.

Larson wrote in her argument to the supreme court that Contreras-Castillo knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and should not be allowed to withdraw it.