Aguilar v. State, 423 P.3d 106

Petitioner, a noncitizen brought to the U.S. as a child, was charged with third‑degree assault and riot in 2013 and admitted guilt to counsel soon after arrest.
A written plea offer (probation + 10 days jail credit) was reviewed with petitioner; counsel told him he would be deported "unless ICE decided not to pursue removal proceedings."
The written plea form stated that conviction "will result" in deportation or exclusion and may bar citizenship; petitioner signed the plea and was released to ICE custody.
Petitioner sought post‑conviction relief claiming (1) ineffective/inadequate assistance because counsel failed to advise that the plea would make him ineligible for DACA, and (2) the plea was not knowing/voluntary because of that misinformation.
The post‑conviction court denied relief, finding counsel gave correct and sufficient advice and petitioner knowingly pleaded guilty to secure release.
On appeal, the court reviewed state and federal ineffective‑assistance standards and considered whether Padilla altered the Oregon rule announced in Gonzalez.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s immigration advice violated Article I, §11 (Oregon)	Counsel should have specified that plea would bar DACA eligibility; more specific immigration advice was required	Gonzalez permits advising only that conviction "may result" in deportation; counsel told petitioner risk of deportation	Counsel’s advice met Gonzalez; no deficiency under state constitution; claim foreclosed by Gonzalez
Whether counsel’s advice was ineffective under the Sixth Amendment (Padilla)	Under Padilla, counsel must advise on immigration consequences including effect on DACA eligibility; failure was unreasonable	Counsel warned of deportation risk and plea form warned deportation would result; Padilla does not require exhaustive advice when consequences are not clear	Padilla satisfied: where law is unclear, advising that a conviction may carry immigration risk is sufficient; no ineffective assistance shown
Whether the plea was knowing and voluntary given alleged misinformation	Petitioner would not have pleaded if informed about DACA ineligibility; thus plea was involuntary	Petitioner was informed of deportation risk, reviewed plea form, and elected to plead to obtain release	Plea was knowing and voluntary; claim fails because counsel’s advice was constitutionally sufficient

Gonzalez v. State of Oregon, 340 Or. 452 (2006) (Oregon rule: advising a noncitizen that a conviction "may result" in deportation satisfies Article I, §11)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires correct advice when deportation consequences are "succinct, clear, and explicit"; otherwise advising of a risk is sufficient)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (presumed prejudice in rare circumstances when counsel wholly fails to function)
Krummacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or. 867 (1981) (Oregon standard for inadequate assistance under Article I, §11)
Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or. 1 (2014) (state and federal standards for counsel assistance are functionally equivalent in post‑conviction context)