State of Iowa v. Ali Abdelkarim Ali, 16-0378

Ali, a Syrian-born lawful permanent resident brought to the U.S. as a child, was charged with attempted murder and first-degree robbery after a 2015 home invasion; he pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary (class C) in exchange for dismissal of the more serious counts.
Defense counsel filed a “Citizenship Addendum” stating counsel advised Ali that a deferred judgment at open sentencing provided the best chance to avoid deportation; counsel relied on Padilla authority.
The district court denied Ali’s request for deferred judgment and sentenced him to an indeterminate ten-year prison term; Ali timely appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration advice.
Ali argued a deferred judgment still constitutes a “conviction” under federal immigration law for aggravated-felony removal purposes, so counsel’s advice was incorrect and induced his plea.
The State did not dispute counsel gave misinformation and focused its defense on prejudice—arguing Ali would not rationally have rejected the plea given uncertainty about deferred judgment and the plea benefits.
The court found the record adequate, concluded counsel breached an essential duty, and held Ali established Padilla/Strickland prejudice because, given his strong ties to the U.S. and risk of removal to unstable countries, rejecting the plea would have been a rational option; conviction and sentence vacated and case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel provided constitutionally adequate advice about immigration consequences of guilty plea	State: counsel’s misinformation is conceded; focus is on whether defendant was prejudiced and would have rationally rejected plea	Ali: counsel misadvised that deferred judgment avoided deportation; but deferred judgment still counts as a conviction for immigration removal, so he pleaded under false hope	Court: counsel breached duty and Ali showed Padilla/Strickland prejudice because rejecting plea would have been rational given risk of deportation and his strong U.S. ties
Whether the prejudice standard for guilty-plea ineffective assistance (Hill/Strickland) is met in immigration-context	State: Even with error, Ali likely would not have rejected beneficial plea given uncertainty of outcome at trial	Ali: Padilla requires showing that rejecting the plea would have been rational under circumstances, not proof he would have prevailed at trial	Court: Applied Padilla—prejudice met because preserving U.S. residence may outweigh incarceration; reasonable probability Ali would have insisted on trial

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise about clear deportation consequences of guilty pleas)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice in plea cases measured by whether counsel’s errors affected plea decision)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: duty and prejudice)
State v. Kress, 636 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2001) (remedy of setting aside plea and allowing defendant to plead anew)
State v. Hernandez-Galarza, 864 N.W.2d 122 (Iowa 2015) (recognizing duty to advise about deportation risk)
People v. Morones-Quinonez, 363 P.3d 807 (Colo. App. 2015) (Padilla prejudice inquiry in immigration context focuses on rationality of rejecting plea)
Commonwealth v. Lavrinenko, 38 N.E.3d 278 (Mass. 2015) (noncitizen plea calculus differs owing to immigration stakes)
People v. Kazadi, 284 P.3d 70 (Colo. App. 2011) (ties to U.S. support a rational decision to reject plea despite weak trial prospects)