withstand a challenge to the sufficiency of a plea hearing. See State v. Riefenstahl, 172 Vt. 597, 599, 779 A.2d 675, 678 (2001) (mem.) (“[W]e require only a practical application of the rule ensuring fairnes d at 708 (noting that court is not required to predict consequence but not addressing court’s ability to do so); cf. Setien, 173 Vt. at 580, 795 A.2d at 1140. ¶ 13. Even assuming that defendant’s convictions will automatically bar him from gaining citizenship — which is not necessarily clear from the record or the applicable federal law — 13 V.S.A. § 6565(c)(2) only requires that the court in its Rule 11 colloquy inform defendants of the potential of deportation or denial of citizenship before accepting a guilty plea. See State v. Stewart, 822 A.2d 366, 369 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003) (<HOLDING>). The law does not require the court to analyze
holding that trial judges warning that if defendant was not citizen that conviction might have consequences of deportation exclusion or denial of naturalization was sufficient even though judge did not inform defendant that his conviction would certainly result in deportation holding that the procedural aspects of iirira  309c apply only to ongoing exclusion or deportation proceedings and are irrelevant in cases involving aliens whose orders of deportation or exclusion were final on the effective date holding that because congress did not specifically state that deportation terminates supervised release it remains intact even after an aliens deportation holding that appellant was harmed by trial courts failure to admonish him of deportation consequences of his guilty plea where the record was silent about whether he was ever specifically informed that his guilty plea could result in deportation and record showed that appellant moved to the united states from korea recognizing detention during deportation proceedings as a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process