under Strickland, consistent with the holding in Padilla. Reversed and remanded. 1 . In Padilla, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that it must be careful about "recognizing new grounds for attacking the validity of guilty pleas” but noted that "in the 25 years since we first applied Strickland to claims of ineffective assistance at the plea stage, practice has shown that pleas are less frequently the subject of collateral challenges than convictions obtained after a trial.” 559 U.S. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 1485. 2 . At oral argument on appeal, Campos argued that violation of Rule 15.01, mandating that a non-citizen defendant be advised of immigration consequences of a plea is a separate ground for reversal in this case. See State v. Lopez, 794 N.W.2d 379, 380 (Minn.App.2011) (<HOLDING>). But Campos only asserted the Rule 15
holding that an unrepresented defendant who entered a plea without signing a written plea petition and who had limited experience with the criminaljustice system satisfied the fairandjust standard for presentence plea withdrawal holding that a criminal defendant must provide a fair and just reason to support withdrawal of his guilty plea even when that plea has not yet been accepted by the district court holding defendants refusal to withdraw plea when afforded opportunity by sentencing court which had reviewed presentence report and found terms of plea deal inappropriate was not entitled to specific performance of original plea recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea holding that defendant was responsible for the delay from the withdrawal of his guilty plea