Daramola v. State, 430 P.3d 201

Background

Petitioner, a conditional permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen, pled guilty in July 2015 to first-degree online sexual corruption of a child (ORS 163.433).
Petitioner faced an upcoming I-751 filing to remove conditions on residence; conviction risked immigration consequences including removal.
Criminal defense counsel referred petitioner to an immigration attorney, obtained a written immigration opinion, and discussed risks including that the charge was likely a crime involving moral turpitude and could prompt removal proceedings; counsel also discussed asylum as a way to delay removal.
Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment (Padilla), arguing counsel failed to advise that removal was virtually certain and that asylum was unavailable because the offense was a particularly serious crime (PSC).
The post-conviction court denied relief, finding counsel adequately advised petitioner and that petitioner was aware of the consequences when he pled guilty.
On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding immigration consequences were not sufficiently clear to require categorical, unequivocal advice and that counsel’s conduct (including consulting immigration counsel) met Padilla’s standard here.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective under Padilla for failing to advise removal was virtually certain	Daramola: counsel should have unequivocally told him conviction would lead to removal; he would have insisted on trial	State: counsel referred to an immigration expert and reasonably relied on that advice; warning language was adequate given uncertainty	Held: Immigration consequences were not "clear"; counsel's advice that conviction "may" lead to removal met Padilla when law is uncertain
Whether counsel misadvised or failed to advise about asylum eligibility as relief from removal	Daramola: counsel wrongly suggested asylum was possible and failed to advise that the offense was a PSC making asylum unavailable	State: counsel reasonably discussed asylum as a potential avenue (to delay removal) based on immigration counsel's input	Held: Even assuming Padilla covers asylum advice, record shows counsel adequately advised — asylum was presented as a potential, delay-producing option and PSC status was not clear
Whether reliance on immigration counsel absolves defense counsel of Padilla duties	Daramola: not directly argued but implies defense counsel should have provided clearer guidance despite consultation	State: consulted immigration counsel and thus acted reasonably	Held: Consultation is appropriate but does not relieve defense counsel of ultimate duty; here, reliance on immigration counsel was part of adequate representation given legal uncertainty
Whether ORS 163.433 is an aggravated felony / PSC making removal or asylum denial certain	Daramola: immigration expert testimony that conviction was "virtually certain" to be an aggravated felony or PSC	State: no controlling authority establishes ORS 163.433 is an aggravated felony or PSC	Held: Whether ORS 163.433 qualifies as aggravated felony or PSC is a legal question unresolved by authority; ambiguity means consequences were not "clear"

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (advice regarding deportation falls within Sixth Amendment; unequivocal advice required when consequences are clear)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard — deficient performance and prejudice)
Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (preserving eligibility for relief from removal is a core concern in plea decisions)
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Padilla gave St. Cyr expectations Sixth Amendment significance)
United States v. Bonilla, 637 F.3d 980 (counsel must inform defendant when deportation is virtually certain)
United States v. Rodriguez-Vega, 797 F.3d 781 (equivocal warnings about deportation inadequate)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (defendant entitled to effective assistance of competent counsel)