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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT