Roberto Barajas v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 221
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Barajas, a non-U.S. citizen with limited English, pled guilty to Class D felony possession of cocaine under a plea agreement.
- The plea was translated into Spanish; Barajas was informed the plea could have immigration consequences, including possible deportation.
- During the plea colloquy, the court and translator explained deportation risks; Barajas expressed need to consult counsel but ultimately pled guilty.
- Barajas was sentenced to 1.5 years, suspended to probation, and completed probation successfully.
- In January 2012, Barajas filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to explain immigration consequences.
- The post-conviction court conducted two days of hearings and denied relief; Barajas appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel deficient for failing to explain deportation consequences? | Barajas argues Padilla required such advice. | Barajas contends counsel did not adequately explain immigration consequences. | Yes, deficient performance established under Padilla framework. |
| Did Barajas suffer prejudice from any deficient performance? | The court correctly warned about possible deportation, negating prejudice. | Even with deficient performance, prejudice should be shown. | No prejudice; the trial court's warnings suffice; rejection affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (duty to advise on immigration consequences when deportation is clear)
- Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (failure to advise of deportation consequences can be deficient)
- Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 2013) (ineffective-assistance standard; prejudice analysis applies)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice required for IAC)
- Landis v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. 2001) (certainty of prejudice analysis in IAC claims)
- Carrillo v. State, 982 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (Padilla retroactivity and immigration consequences discussed)