Chacon v. State
409 S.W.3d 529
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Chacon pled guilty to cocaine possession and forgery in 2010; sentences were two years on each count to be served concurrently.
- Chacon, a Mexican national with expired visa, was living in the U.S. unlawfully at the time of arrest.
- The plea hearing did not include discussion of deportation consequences.
- Chacon filed a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance for failing to warn about deportation; counsel amended the motion.
- The motion court denied relief, and Chacon appealed, arguing ineffective assistance under Padilla v. Kentucky.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's advice about deportation was deficient under Padilla. | Chacon asserts counsel failed to inform him of mandatory deportation. | State contends counsel satisfied Padilla by advising risk of deportation and consulting immigration counsel. | No reversible error; counsel's advice was adequate under Padilla. |
| Whether the deportation risk was sufficient to render the plea involuntary. | Chacon would have gone to trial if properly advised. | State argues plea knowing and voluntary; deportation risk was adequately communicated. | Plea was knowing and voluntary; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether Padilla requires explicit language of 'mandatory deportation' when the risk is clear. | Padilla requires explicit warning of mandatory deportation. | Padilla requires accurate advice about deportation risk, not literal phrasing. | Padilla satisfied; explicit wording not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (duty to advise on deportation risk when consequences are clear)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla extends to noncitizens; immigration consequences advising)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice inquiry in guilty-plea cases requires reasonable probability of trial would have occurred)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (definition of aggravated felony for immigration purposes requires categorical approach)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (categorical approach to determinations of deportation consequences)