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. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT