ILNews

Man facing deportation loses 2 appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A citizen of Ecuador who has lived in the U.S. since he was one year old was unable to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals in separate cases that his counsel’s failure to inform him of the possible deportation consequences of pleading guilty to a crime should result in post-conviction relief.

In 1997, Alex Carrillo pleaded guilty to Class D felony possession of cocaine pursuant to a plea agreement for a lesser sentence that resulted in the judge entering a conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession. In 2006, Carrillo pleaded guilty to Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and the felony was entered as a Class A misdemeanor by the judge.

In April 2011, Carrillo was detained by federal immigration authorities and now faces deportation proceedings based upon his resisting law enforcement and possession of cocaine convictions.

In his two appeals before the COA, he claimed that his guilty plea counsel failed to provide effective assistance of counsel by not telling him that pleading guilty could result in deportation. In the case stemming from his 1997 conviction, Alex Carrillo v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1108-PC-437, the post-conviction court found Carrillo failed to establish prejudice from his counsel’s failure to advise. In Alex Carrillo v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1112-PC-1209, based on the 2006 conviction, the post-conviction court found Carrillo established prejudice but failed to establish that his counsel’s failure to advise constituted ineffective assistance because his attorney didn’t know that Carrillo wasn’t a U.S. citizen.

In his appeal from the 1997 case, Carrillo argued that he lived in the United States for 30 years at the time of his guilty plea and that he has a wife, five children and other relatives that live in this country. But he did not bring up this information in his 1997 hearing. The judges also found that the state had a very strong case against Carrillo for drug possession and he benefited from pleading guilty. Therefore, he failed to show there is a reasonable probability but for his counsel’s failure to advise that he wouldn’t have pleaded guilty, Judge Terry Crone wrote.

In the 2006 case, the judges focused on whether Carrillo’s attorney’s performance was deficient because he didn’t inform his client that the guilty plea could have adverse immigration consequences. Carrillo argued that he wasn’t required to show that his attorney knew he wasn’t a citizen or establish that the norm at the time of his hearing was for the attorney to make such an inquiry.

Relying on Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496, 500 (Ind. 2001), the judges pointed out that Carrillo’s attorney did not know that he was not a citizen and that the professional norms at the time he pleaded guilty in 2006 did not include requiring attorneys to ask every client whether he or she is a U.S. citizen, Crone wrote. Beginning with the 2009 edition of the Indiana Criminal Benchbook, trial judges are now to inquire as to whether a defendant is a U.S. citizen and ask whether the possibility of deportation has been discussed with counsel.   

The judges found Carrillo’s attorney did not provide deficient performance because he had no reason to suspect Carrillo wasn’t born in the U.S.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT