117 N.E.3d 1272
Ind.2019Background
- Angelo Bobadilla, a 19-year-old DACA recipient born in Mexico, pled guilty in 2016 to two misdemeanors (theft and marijuana possession) after counsel negotiated a plea for maximum-but-suspended sentences.
- Counsel presented the county’s standard advisement form but marked the immigration/citizenship warning "N/A" without asking Bobadilla his citizenship status or reading the paragraph aloud.
- Discovery provided to defense counsel included a Book-In Slip showing Bobadilla’s birthplace as Cuernavaca, Mexico, which the post-conviction court later judicially noticed.
- After learning his conviction made him removable, Bobadilla filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland; the trial court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed on prejudice grounds.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, held counsel’s unilateral "N/A" marking without inquiry was constitutionally deficient, and found Bobadilla proved prejudice (reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bobadilla) | Defendant's Argument (State / Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's failure to advise about immigration consequences or inquiry into citizenship constituted deficient performance | Counsel marked immigration warning "N/A" without asking — per Padilla counsel must inform noncitizen clients; thus performance was deficient | Counsel reasonably assumed client was a U.S. citizen (client spoke English, no accent, etc.); no reason to suspect noncitizenship | Held: Deficient — marking "N/A" without inquiry (despite discovery showing birthplace) violated Strickland/Padilla and was objectively unreasonable |
| Whether Bobadilla was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance (i.e., would have refused plea and insisted on trial) | Bobadilla had strong U.S. ties, DACA status, first offense, low-level misdemeanors — reasonable probability he'd reject plea that guaranteed deportation | State argued petitioner failed to show special/corroborating circumstances proving he would have insisted on trial | Held: Prejudice shown — under Hill/Lee the record contained special circumstances (ties to U.S., youth, DACA, low-level charges) supporting a reasonable probability he would have refused the plea and insisted on trial |
| Proper prejudice standard when counsel miscounsels about deportation consequences of a plea | Apply Hill’s plea-stage prejudice test focusing on whether defendant would have insisted on trial; evidence must be case-specific | Some prior state precedent required an objective-reasonable-defendant standard; State relied on courts focusing on strength of prosecution | Held: Apply Hill/Lee subjective, case-by-case test (look to defendant’s particular circumstances); disapproves Segura’s overly objective framing |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings (language, demeanor, partially redacted SSN) justified finding no deficiency | Counsel relied on observable indicia (English fluency, no accent) and absence of explicit notice of noncitizenship in charging papers | Those indicia are unreliable; discovery showing birthplace should have prompted inquiry; best practice is to ask every client | Held: Court erred — such superficial indicia are insufficient; counsel should have asked or allowed client to read the advisement before marking "N/A" |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform noncitizen whether a plea carries risk of deportation)
- 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) (prejudice at plea stage shown by reasonable probability defendant would have refused plea and insisted on trial)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1958 (2017) (applies Hill to deportation-miscounseling claims; requires case-specific evidence of defendant’s reasons to risk trial)
- Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (Indiana precedent recognizing failure to advise of deportation can be deficient; court refines and disapproves aspects inconsistent with Lee)
- Williams v. State, 641 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (earlier state decision holding counsel should advise noncitizen clients about deportation consequences)