Alex Carrillo v. State of Indiana
982 N.E.2d 461
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Carrillo, a citizen of Ecuador, immigrated to the U.S. as a child and resides in Indiana; he remains Ecuadorian-situs despite lifelong U.S. residence.
- In 1997, Carrillo was arrested after a motorcycle accident and found with cocaine; he was intoxicated and charged with possession of cocaine (class D felony) and public intoxication (class B misdemeanor).
- Represented by a public defender, Carrillo pled guilty in September 1997 to class D felony possession under a plea agreement that allowed alternative misdemeanor sentencing and a fully suspended 365-day sentence; the public intoxication charge was dismissed.
- In 2011, federal immigration authorities detained Carrillo; he sought post-conviction relief alleging his counsel failed to advise that pleading guilty could affect his immigration status and lead to deportation.
- The post-conviction court denied relief, ruling Carrillo failed to show prejudice from the alleged deficient performance, and Carrillo appeals this denial.
- On appeal, the court applies the standard that a petitioner must show prejudice by a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is prejudice from failure to advise on immigration consequences | Carrillo argues immigration risk would have caused trial denial | Carrillo contends lack of advice prejudiced decision to plead | No prejudice established; facts show strong case and significant benefit from plea |
| Whether Carrillo had special circumstances creating a credible likelihood of trial consideration | Carrillo’s long U.S. residence and family ties constitute special circumstances | Counsel’s failure to advise would not have altered decision given strength of evidence | Special circumstances not sufficiently compelling to show prejudice under the record |
| Whether objective facts support that but for counsel’s errors, Carrillo would have gone to trial | Self-serving claim of would-have-trial if advised of deportation risk | Record shows strong prosecution case and plea benefitted Carrillo | Record lacking objective facts showing a reasonable probability of avoiding guilty plea; prejudice not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Sial v. State, 862 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (special circumstances may establish prejudice from immigration consequences)
- Trujillo v. State, 962 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (no prejudice where family ties not sufficiently compelling)
- Clarke v. State, 974 N.E.2d 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (strength of State’s case and plea benefit considered in prejudice)
- Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (objective factors needed to show reasonable probability of declining plea due to immigration risk)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standard for prejudice in guilty-plea ineffectiveness)
- Williams v. State, 641 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (earlier recognition that deportation consequences may affect plea)