Haris Keserovic v. State, 345 P.3d 1024

Keserovic, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor petit theft (365 days with 305 suspended, 2 years probation) after counsel advised no immigration consequences.
ICE warned Keserovic in jail he would be deported if convicted of a felony; counsel repeatedly reassured him the plea (to a misdemeanor) posed no immigration risk.
At the change-of-plea hearing the prosecutor said the plea could be treated as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes and could subject Keserovic to deportation; the magistrate asked if he understood the plea could affect citizenship/immigration and Keserovic said he did.
Keserovic was later detained by ICE and deported; he filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for incorrect immigration advice and that he would not have pled guilty if properly advised.
The magistrate granted the State’s summary dismissal (finding any deficiency cured by the prosecutor/court statements); the district court reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact on prejudice because counsel gave affirmative, incorrect assurances that deportation would not follow.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, holding the prosecutor’s and magistrate’s statements did not necessarily cure counsel’s affirmative misadvice and that prejudice was a genuine issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s incorrect advice about immigration consequences amounted to deficient performance under Padilla	Counsel affirmatively told Keserovic a misdemeanor plea would have no immigration consequences; under Padilla clear deportation consequences require correct advice	State largely concedes deficiency under Padilla but focuses on prejudice	Court agreed counsel’s incorrect advice was objectively deficient where consequences were clear under Padilla
Whether Keserovic showed prejudice (would have rejected plea) and whether prosecutor/court statements cured counsel’s error	Keserovic would have rejected the plea to avoid virtual-certainty of deportation; counsel’s repeated misstatements created a genuine issue of material fact on prejudice	State argues rejecting plea was irrational given strong evidence and that the prosecutor’s and magistrate’s warnings cured counsel’s error	Court held prejudice was a genuine issue (avoiding deportation could outweigh jail exposure) and the prosecutor/magistrate statements did not necessarily cure counsel’s affirmative misadvice

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must give correct advice when deportation consequence is "truly clear")
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Murray v. State, 156 Idaho 159 (Idaho Supreme Court: court admonitions can, in some contexts, cure counsel deficiencies)
Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758 (prejudice standard when conviction follows guilty plea; petitioner must show reasonable probability he would have gone to trial)
Popoca-Garcia v. State, 157 Idaho 150 (discussion of counsel’s Padilla obligations and varying advisory duties)