Angelo Bobadilla v. State of Indiana, 29A02-1706-PC-1203

Angelo Bobadilla, a DACA recipient born in Mexico, pleaded guilty in March 2016 to Class A misdemeanor theft and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana under a plea agreement that dismissed two other misdemeanor counts and resulted in an entirely suspended sentence/probation.
During the plea process, counsel filled out a standardized advisement form; counsel marked "N/A" next to the immigration-consequences advisement without asking Bobadilla about his citizenship, and Bobadilla did not read the items counsel marked "N/A."
Bobadilla later learned from an immigration attorney that his theft conviction could render him deportable and filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him about immigration consequences.
At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, counsel admitted marking "N/A" and not asking about immigration status; Bobadilla testified he would have "taken a different approach" if advised but did not expressly say he would have gone to trial.
The post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Bobadilla failed to show prejudice from counsel’s omission. Chief Judge Vaidik dissented, concluding prejudice was shown and would have reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s failure to advise about immigration consequences constituted ineffective assistance of counsel in the guilty-plea context	Bobadilla: counsel failed to advise of deportation risk; this error was material because deportation would have affected his decision to plead	State: even if advice was deficient, Bobadilla cannot show prejudice because he did not show he would have rejected the plea; plea gave substantial benefits and the State’s case was strong	Court: No ineffective assistance—prejudice not established; petitioner did not show he would have proceeded to trial or rejected plea if properly advised
Whether Lee v. United States requires finding prejudice here	Bobadilla: Lee lowers the bar; immigration risk can be dispositive like in Lee and supports relief	State: Lee is distinguishable—Bobadilla did not make deportation the determinative factor; facts differ (benefit of plea and strength of State’s case)	Court: Lee is distinguishable; Bobadilla failed to show deportation was determinative, so Lee does not mandate relief

Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (framework for ineffective-assistance claims in guilty-plea context: failure to advise on defenses vs. incorrect advisement of penal consequences)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (attorney’s incorrect assurances about deportation can be prejudicial where deportation was the determinative factor in pleading)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen clients regarding deportation risk of a plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (application of Strickland prejudice inquiry to guilty pleas)