Encarnacion v. State, 295 Ga. 660

Encarnacion pleaded guilty to burglary in Gwinnett County and received first-offender treatment (six-year sentence, with one year to serve and conditions).
Trial counsel advised that a guilty plea ‘may’ impact immigration status and that he should seek immigration advice; counsel also suggested deportation was possible even with first-offender treatment.
The State asked during the plea if the plea could affect immigration status; Encarnacion affirmed understanding.
Petition for habeas corpus claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and that the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, arguing misstatement that deportation risk could be avoided by first-offender completion.
The habeas court denied relief, holding counsel’s advice was accurate and not ineffective, and noting it lacked authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding that if deportation is truly clear and relief is unavailable, counsel must provide accurate advice; case remanded to assess prejudice under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding immigration consequences	Encarnacion claims counsel misadvised that deportation was only a possibility.	State contends counsel advised accurately about immigration risk and that Padilla’s standard was not violated here.	Yes; deficient performance established, remand for prejudice

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court 2010) (duty to give correct immigration advice when consequences are clear)
Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782 (Ga. 1985) (ineffective assistance standard in Strickland context)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013) (aggravated felonies and removal consequences strictness)
Resendiz-Alcaraz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 383 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2004) (INA conviction definitions and expungement considerations)
Jaggernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2005) (aggravated felony definition and sentence length impact)
United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2014) (noncitizen rights and explicit immigration consequences analysis)