ILNews

COA addresses impact of guilty pleas on immigration status

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a man’s petitions for post-conviction relief, finding his attorneys’ failure to advise him of adverse immigration consequences of pleading guilty did not prejudice his defense.

In Manuel Trujillo v. State of Indiana, No. 71A03-1102-PC-73, Manuel Trujillo appealed the denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief stemming from two cases – one in 1999 and one in 2008 – when he pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy to deal marijuana. After he pleaded guilty in 2008 he was deported to Mexico, from where he immigrated in 1974.

Trujillo argued that his attorneys in both cases rendered ineffective assistance by not alerting him of the possibility of deportation in the event he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. The appellate court declined to address the issues raised in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), involving the responsibility of counsel, and also whether that case is retroactive, because the judges could resolve Trujillo’s case on grounds of lack of a showing of prejudice.

Regarding his 1999 conviction, Trujillo admitted at the post-conviction hearing that he would have pleaded guilty even if he had been told at the time about possible deportation. Regarding the 2008 conviction, the appellate court rejected his argument that his case is a “special circumstance” within the meaning of Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d. 496 (Ind. 2001). Trujillo did not demonstrate he suffered prejudice as a result of neither of his attorneys advising him on the adverse immigration consequences of pleading guilty.

The COA also cited Williams v. State, 641 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), to reject Trujillo’s claim that the trial court had a duty to inquire whether he understood that a guilty plea might carry with it negative immigration consequences.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT