Naveed Gulzar v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 374
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Gulzar, born in Pakistan, entered the U.S. in 2000 as a minor with intent to stay and naturalize.
- In January 2006 Gulzar and Adnan Hakin stole a credit card and used it to purchase items at multiple stores; video and apartment search tied to Gulzar.
- Gulzar pled guilty in March 2006 to one count of Class D felony theft; other two felonies were dismissed; sentence of 18 months suspended to probation.
- Between 2006-2011 Gulzar filed motions to modify sentencing; in November 2011 he sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance for not being advised of deportation consequences.
- At post-conviction, counsel testified he warned of potential impact on citizenship but admitted failure to advise automatic deportability from a theft conviction; Gulzar later consulted an immigration attorney.
- January 2012 post-conviction court denied relief, finding no prejudice from lack of deportation advisement; Gulzar appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for deportation advice | Gulzar asserts counsel’s failure to inform of automatic deportation was prejudicial. | State contends no prejudice; guilty plea and evidence support conviction regardless of deportation risk. | No prejudice; affirmed post-conviction denial. |
| Segura framework applicability | Segura requires objective facts showing material effect on plea decision. | State applies Segura to require proof of prejudice with special circumstances. | Segura applied; Gulzar failed to show sufficient special circumstances establishing prejudice. |
| Special circumstances akin to Sial | Gulzar’s family ties constitute special circumstances making deportation particularly impactful. | Family hardship does not automatically render plea unreasonable given guilt evidence. | Special circumstances present but insufficient to prove prejudice given guilt and plea benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (requires objective facts showing material impact of penal-consequence advice on plea)
- Trujillo v. State, 962 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (treats prejudice inquiry when evaluating ineffective assistance post-conviction)
- Sial v. State, 862 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (special circumstances may support claim of deportation prejudice)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (failure to advise on immigration consequences constitutes deficient performance)
- Landis v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. 2001) (precedent advising when prejudice showing should be used)