Alex Carrillo v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 74
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Carrillo, an Ecuadorian citizen who immigrated to the United States as an infant, has lived in the U.S. for decades and remains an Ecuadorian citizen.
- In 2006, Carrillo was stopped for a traffic offense in Marion County; he fled the scene and was suspected of intoxication and other offenses.
- He pled guilty on October 12, 2006 to resisting law enforcement (class D felony) and operating a vehicle while intoxicated (class A misdemeanor) under a plea agreement that suspended a 365-day sentence and imposed a 90-day license suspension with remaining charges dismissed.
- In 2011, Carrillo was detained by federal immigration authorities and faced deportation proceedings based in part on his 2006 conviction.
- Carrillo filed a post-conviction relief petition in May 2011 asserting his guilty-plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him about potential immigration consequences; the post-conviction court found a prejudice showing but denied relief because counsel reportedly did not know Carrillo’s noncitizen status and thus did not owe a duty to inquire.
- The supreme consideration was whether counsel’s knowledge of a client’s noncitizen status is a threshold factor in evaluating deficient performance under Strickland/Segura framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is knowledge of noncitizen status a threshold factor for deficient performance? | Carrillo argues knowledge should not be required to assess deficiency. | State argues knowledge is a relevant consideration per Segura/Sial framework. | Yes; knowledge is a factor in deficiency. |
| Did the post-conviction court err by applying a framework treating knowledge as a precondition to deficient performance? | Carrillo contends the framework misapplies Segura’s guidance. | State maintains the court properly weighed knowledge as part of deficiency analysis. | The framework was considered properly; the court did not err. |
| Did Carrillo demonstrate ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to advise about deportation risk given no knowledge of noncitizen status? | Carrillo contends counsel should have advised regardless of known status. | State argues no deficient performance absent counsel’s knowledge or reason to suspect noncitizenship. | Counsel’s performance was not deficient because no knowledge or reasonable indicators of noncitizenship existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (facially recognizes fact-sensitive inquiry into deportation advice, including attorney knowledge)
- Sial v. State, 862 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (discusses threshold knowledge considerations in ineffective assistance analysis)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (holds counsel must inform client of immigration consequences; not always requiring exact probability but awareness)
- Williams v. State, 641 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (deportation consequences can be a significant factor in effectiveness)
- Clarke v. State, 974 N.E.2d 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (percolating discussion on whether duties extend to citizenship inquiries; affirmation on other grounds)