ILNews

Man unable to show prejudice by attorney’s lack of deportation advisement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Pakistan-born man who faces automatic deportation as a result of his guilty plea to felony theft lost his pursuit for post-conviction relief before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The judges found Naveed Gulzar was unable to show he was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to advise him that automatic deportation is a consequence of his guilty plea.

Gulzar came to the U.S. in 2000 with his family, but he never became a naturalized citizen, only a legal permanent resident. In January 2006, he stole a credit card from a customer at a convenience store and used the credit card to make purchases on four occasions. Gulzar was arrested in March 2006 and charged with one count of theft and two counts of fraud, all Class D felonies. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of Class D felony theft and he was sentenced to 18 months in the Indiana Department of Correction, all suspended to probation. He successfully completed his probation.

The agreement advised him of his rights, including that he understood that if he isn’t a legal citizen of the U.S., he may be deported as a result of the guilty plea. Gulzar initialed that section.

Over the next five years, Gulzar sought to have his sentence modified. In November 2011, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for not telling him that pleading guilty to theft would make him automatically deportable under two federal immigration laws.

At the post-conviction hearing, Gulzar’s trial attorney said he failed to tell Gulzar that the guilty plea would make him automatically deportable. Gulzar claimed if he had been told that, he would not have pleaded guilty. The post-conviction court found Gulzar failed to establish prejudice.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Gulzar’s argument that his deportation would be a hardship on his parents and siblings. The judges cited Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001), in which the Supreme Court found no reason to require revisiting a guilty plea if, at the end of the day, the inevitable result is conviction and the same sentence. The justices also held that only in “extreme cases” does a “truly innocent defendant” plead guilty because of incorrect advice as to the consequences.

This is not one of those extreme cases, Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote, pointing to the surveillance video of Gulzar’s participating in the crimes and the discovery of the items purchased with the stolen credit card in his apartment.

“While Gulzar may have shown special circumstances related to his family, in light of the evidence establishing his guilt, he has failed to demonstrate prejudice as a result of trial counsel’s failure to advise him that his guilty plea would result in automatic deportation,” she wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Convicting The Innocent
    If what Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote about only the truly innocent pleading guilty in extreme cases, why does an Ohio study estimate tha nearly 10,000 innocent people are convicted in the U .S. each year?

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT