dissenting.
[¶ 11] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that the District Court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 1(c) to decide Ngo’s motion to vacate his convictions. Although I agree with the majority that the Superior Court holds exclusive power to conduct post-conviction review, our decision in State v. Trott conclusively determines that Ngo is ineligible for post-conviction review. As such, the majority view creates procedural inefficiency as well as substantive ineffectiveness.
[¶ 12] Trott involved a factual scenario similar to Ngo’s. In 2001, Geno Trott, a citizen of Bermuda, pleaded no contest and was convicted of terrorizing his wife and obstructing the report of a crime. State v. Trott, 2004 ME 15, ¶3, 841 A.2d 789, 790. The court sentenced Trott to sixty days in jail, with credit for time served. Id. Because Trott had already served more than sixty days, he was released without further restriction or any term of probation. Id. In 2003, Trott applied to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services for an adjustment to his citizenship status. Id. ¶ 4, 841 A.2d at 790. The BCIS determined that each of Trott’s convictions were deportable offenses. Id. Trott filed a motion in District Court for a writ of coram nobis and for post-conviction review, alleging that his no contest pleas were obtained in violation of his right to effective assistance of counsel and right to due process. Id. ¶¶ 5-6, 841 A.2d at 790-91. The District Court denied Trott’s motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 5, 841 A.2d at 790-91.
[¶ 13] On appeal, we determined that Trott’s situation — presently subject to restraint in the course of deportation proceedings — did not satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of present restraint for post-conviction review under paragraphs A, B, *1228D, or E of 15 M.R.S. § 2124(1) (2005).6 Id. ¶ 9, 841 A.2d at 791-92. However, we ultimately determined that Trott was eligible for post-conviction review under paragraph C because a “sentence to time previously served, imposed without any additional term of probation or other restriction on the individual, is the functional equivalent of an unconditional discharge as that term is addressed by the post-conviction review statute.” Id. ¶ 13, 841 A.2d at 793. Accordingly, we affirmed the District Court’s ruling because a remedy was available to Trott to address his concerns through post-conviction review in Superior Court. Id.
[¶ 14] Like Trott, Ngo’s restraint by federal immigration officials in the course of deportation proceedings is the direct result of the challenged criminal convictions but does not qualify as present restraint under paragraphs A, B, D, or E of 15 M.R.S. § 2124(1). However, unlike Trott, Ngo was sentenced to and served a probationary period, which disqualifies him from eligibility for post-conviction review under paragraph C. Thus, because Ngo has already completed his sentence and because his detainment by federal immigration officials does not satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of restraint or impediment, he is ineligible for post-conviction review.
[¶ 15] Post-conviction review is only the exclusive mode of review for matters that it covers; it does not cover Ngo’s situation. Ngo’s motion to vacate his criminal convictions is based on the failure of his attorney to inform him of the potential immigration consequences of his convictions. He “failed” to petition for post-conviction review in a timely manner because he did not learn of the immigration consequences until he was taken into federal custody years after he had completed his sentence. Ngo’s custody and deportation proceedings do not constitute restraint or impediment under the post-conviction statute. The post-conviction review process simply does not contemplate Ngo’s circumstances. Lacking a procedure specifically prescribed to address this situation, M.R.Crim. P. 1(c) is the proper jurisdictional basis for Ngo to bring his motion in District Court. Indeed, M.R.Crim. P. 1(c) is Ngo’s only opportunity to obtain due process under the laws of Maine.
*1229[¶ 16] Without any legal recourse, Ngo will be deported because he failed to petition for post-conviction review before he knew about what his counsel failed to tell him. But cf. State v. Johnson, 2006 ME 35, ¶¶ 5-7, 14, 894 A.2d 489, 490-91, 492-93 (denying the State’s motion to correct a sentencing error under M.R.Crim. P. 1(c) four years after the sentence was imposed, where the State knew of the error at the time of judgment and commitment and a specific procedure was available pursuant to Rule 35(a) to correct the error within one year). The majority would allow a post-conviction review petition in Superior Court, where Ngo could challenge the constitutionality of the post-conviction review statute as applied to him. Suggesting that Ngo may bring a constitutional challenge does not thereby provide him with a procedure by which to bring his claim. M.R.Crim. P. 1(c), on the other hand, is a procedure that is, by definition, available to Ngo where no other procedure is prescribed, regardless of whether the absence of a procedure is constitutional. Further, it is not to be taken lightly that we have no assurance that Ngo will not be deported by federal immigration officials while his constitutional challenge to a state law is pending. It is our obligation to see that Ngo has an opportunity to present the merits of his position; it is not Ngo’s obligation to be the vehicle through which the constitutionality of 15 M.R.S. § 2124 is tested. For these reasons, I would find that the District Court has jurisdiction to hear Ngo’s motion to vacate his criminal convictions pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 1(c).
. Title 15 M.R.S. § 2124 (2005), entitled "Jurisdictional prerequisite of restraint or impediment,” states:
An action for post-conviction review of a criminal judgment of this State or of a post-sentencing proceeding following the criminal judgment may be brought if the person seeking relief demonstrates that the challenged criminal judgment or post-sentencing proceeding is causing a present restraint or other specified impediment as described in subsections 1 to 3:
1. Present restraint by criminal judgment. Present restraint or impediment as a direct result of the challenged criminal judgment:
A. Incarceration pursuant to the sentence imposed as a result of the criminal judgment which is challenged;
B. Other restraint, including probation, parole, other conditional release or a juvenile disposition other than incarceration or probation, imposed as a result of the sentence for the criminal judgment which is challenged;
C. A sentence of unconditional discharge resulting from a criminal judgment, for a period of 2 years following the date of sentence;
D. Incarceration, other restraint or an impediment specified in paragraphs A, B and C which is to be served in the future, although the convicted or adjudicated person is not in execution of the sentence either because of release on bail pending appeal of the criminal judgment or because another sentence must be served first; or
E. A fine imposed by the challenged criminal judgment which has not been paid;