In State v. Nguyen, 81 Hawai'i 279, 916 P.2d 689 (1996), the Hawai'i Supreme Court discussed the relationship among HRS 802E-2 and 802E-3 and HRPP Rules 11(c)(5) and 32(d). Although Nguyen concerned a withdrawal of plea pursuant to HRPP Rule 32(d) prior to the effective date of HRS Chapter 802E, the Hawai'i Supreme Court, in quoting HRS 802E-3, indicated that HRS 802E-3, not HRPP 32(d), would govern the withdrawal of a plea based on a court's failure to comply with the advisement required under HRS 802E-2: Nevertheless, Nguyen correctly asserts that a statute, HRS Chapter 802E, currently requires courts, prior to accepting a plea of nolo contendere, to advise defendants that, if they are not citizens of the United States, their convictions "may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States." HRS 802E-2 (1993). Effective September 2, 1988, an amendment to HRPP Rule 11(c)(5) also requires courts to determine that such defendants understand the collateral consequence of possible deportation. "If the court fails to advise the defendant as required by section 802E-2 and the defendant shows that conviction of the offense to which the defendant pleaded . . . nolo contendere may have the consequence for the defendant of deportation, . . . the court shall vacate the judgment." HRS 802E-3 (1993). Nguyen, 81 Hawai'i at 288-89, 916 P.2d at 698-99. In Nguyen, the retrospective operation of HRS chapter 802E was at issue. However, the supreme court expressly acknowledged that: HRS Chapter 802E currently requires courts, prior to accepting a plea of nolo contendere, to advise defendants that, if they are not citizens of the United States, their convictions "may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States." HRS 802E-2 (1993). Effective September 2, 1988, an amendment to HRPP Rule 11(c)(5) also requires courts to determine that such defendants understand the collateral consequence of possible deportation. 81 Hawai'i at 288, 916 P.2d at 698. The Hawai'i Supreme Court stated that "it is the general rule that, absent a rule or statute, a court has no duty to warn defendants pleading guilty or 'no contest' about the possibility of deportation as a collateral consequence of conviction." In discussing the consequences that a defendant must be advised or need not be advised of, the Nguyen court quoted from People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 403, 657 N.E.2d 265, 267-68, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270 (1995), a New York Court of Appeals case: Manifestly, a criminal court is in no position to advise on all the ramifications of a guilty plea personal to a defendant. Accordingly, the courts have drawn a distinction between consequences of which the defendant must be advised, those which are "direct," and those of which the defendant need not be advised, "collateral consequences." A direct consequence is one which has a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on defendant's punishment. Illustrations of collateral consequences are loss of the right to vote or travel abroad, loss of civil service employment, loss of a driver's license, loss of the right to possess firearms or an undesirable discharge from the Armed Services. The failure to warn of such collateral consequences will not warrant vacating a plea because they are peculiar to the individual and generally result from the actions taken by agencies the court does not control. Deportation is a collateral consequence of conviction because it is a result peculiar to the individual's personal circumstances and one not within the control of the court system. (Nguyen, 81 Hawai'i at 288, 916 P.2d at 698.)