Noe Rico-Navarro v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1609-CR-2201
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.Jun 28, 2017Background
- In 2010 Rico-Navarro (a noncitizen) pleaded guilty to class A misdemeanor battery under a written plea agreement that he signed and initialed, including provisions warning that a conviction could affect immigration status and stating he discussed that with counsel.
- At the plea hearing, with a translator, Rico-Navarro said he had reviewed the plea agreement with his attorney and understood it; the court accepted the plea and sentenced him to 357 days, all suspended to probation.
- Nearly five years later he filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging due process violations and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him of immigration consequences of his guilty plea.
- At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing Rico-Navarro testified his lawyer and the trial court never warned him about immigration consequences and that he only learned of the risk after pleading guilty; no other evidence was offered.
- The post-conviction court took judicial notice of the case file (including the quoted plea provisions), denied relief, and Rico-Navarro appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise of immigration consequences of a guilty plea | Counsel did not inform Rico-Navarro pleading guilty could jeopardize immigration/citizenship status | Plea agreement (signed/initialed) warned of immigration consequences and Rico-Navarro acknowledged understanding; plaintiff’s testimony alone insufficient | Court held counsel was not ineffective; petitioner failed to overcome presumption of adequate representation |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise noncitizen client that criminal charges may carry risk of adverse immigration consequences)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate assistance)
- Hall v. State, 849 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. 2006) (appellate review defers to post‑conviction court’s factual findings and witness credibility)
- McCary v. State, 761 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. 2002) (post‑conviction relief will be overturned only when evidence leads unerringly to opposite conclusion)