State v. Bishop
7 N.E.3d 605
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Harold Bishop pleaded no-contest to domestic violence in 2006 and was convicted; he did not file a direct appeal.
- In 2012 Bishop moved under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his no-contest plea, alleging trial counsel gave ineffective advice about immigration consequences (said deportation "may" occur when it was mandatory).
- The Hamilton County Municipal Court granted Bishop’s motion after a hearing; the state appealed.
- The appellate court analyzed whether Padilla v. Kentucky (recognizing a Sixth Amendment duty to advise noncitizen defendants about immigration consequences) could be applied retroactively to convictions that were final before Padilla.
- The court concluded Padilla announced a new rule under Teague and Chaidez and thus could not be applied to Bishop’s 2006 final conviction; it reversed the trial court’s grant of the Crim.R. 32.1 motion and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered constitutionally deficient advice by saying deportation "may" rather than mandating it | State: counsel’s performance should be evaluated under Strickland; Padilla governs inaccurate immigration advice | Bishop: counsel misadvised that deportation was only possible when removal for domestic violence was mandatory, satisfying Strickland/Hill prejudice standard | Court: counsel was deficient under Padilla (advice was incorrect because deportation for domestic violence is mandatory) |
| Whether Padilla can be applied retroactively to convictions final before March 31, 2010 | State: Padilla is not retroactive under Chaidez/Teague to convictions final before Padilla | Bishop: asks Ohio to follow Massachusetts (Sylvain) and apply Padilla retroactively under state law | Court: Padilla is a "new rule" under Teague/Chaidez; because Bishop’s conviction was final in 2006, Padilla cannot be applied retroactively; trial court abused its discretion in granting plea withdrawal |
| Whether Ohio should adopt a different retroactivity standard than Teague (as Massachusetts did) | State: Ohio follows Teague/Chaidez and may decline broader retroactivity | Bishop: argues Ohio should follow Sylvain and apply Padilla retroactively under state law | Court: Ohio precedent did not dictate Padilla in 2006; court declines to adopt Sylvain approach and follows Chaidez/Teague |
| Whether Crim.R. 32.1 relief was warranted to correct "manifest injustice" | State: manifest injustice not shown because Padilla cannot be applied retroactively | Bishop: manifest injustice shown by counsel’s deficient advice that affected plea voluntariness | Court: although counsel was deficient, relief under Crim.R. 32.1 cannot rest on Padilla retroactively; reversal of trial court’s grant of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise noncitizen defendant of immigration consequences when consequences are clear)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule and is not retroactive to convictions final before decision)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for pleas affected by ineffective assistance)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (guilty/no-contest plea must be voluntary and intelligent)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (Crim.R. 32.1 manifest injustice standard)