State v. Bozso, 2018 Ohio 1750

In 2016 Bozso pleaded guilty to one count of sexual battery and one count of attempted abduction arising from 1996 incidents; court imposed suspended prison terms and community control.
Bozso is not a U.S. citizen; after his plea he was detained by DHS in January 2017 and placed in removal proceedings.
In June 2017 Bozso moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel told him he could seek relief from deportation under INA §212(c).
Defense counsel testified he was not an immigration specialist, had Bozso consult an immigration attorney, and that the trial court gave the statutorily required noncitizen advisement at the plea hearing.
The trial court denied the motion, finding the court had given the required advisement and the immigration attorney’s cautions demonstrated Bozso should not have relied on 212(c) relief.
The court of appeals reversed, holding counsel was deficient for not definitively determining deportation consequences where immigration law was "succinct and straightforward," and Bozso’s affidavit that he would not have pled guilty but for the misinformation established prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bozso)	Held
Whether the plea should be set aside under R.C. 2943.031(D) / whether the court’s deportation advisement cured counsel’s error	Court gave the required statutory advisement at plea; that advisement and immigration counsel’s cautions negate prejudice	Trial counsel’s advice (and reliance on misleading 212(c) prospects) was deficient and prejudiced Bozso despite the court colloquy	The statutory advisement does not automatically cure deficient counsel; court reversed withdrawal denial because prejudice was shown
Whether counsel was ineffective under Padilla for failing to accurately advise about deportation/212(c) relief and whether that prejudice warrants plea withdrawal	Counsel raised deportation, referred to immigration counsel, and the plea colloquy informed defendant of immigration risks	Immigration law was sufficiently "succinct and straightforward" (Cyr), so counsel had duty to give correct advice; misadvice prevented a knowing, voluntary plea	Counsel was deficient for not definitively determining consequences in this clear situation, and Bozso’s sworn statement of reliance established prejudice — motion to withdraw should have been granted

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise about clear deportation consequences; failure can be ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
I.N.S. v. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (212(c) relief available in certain plea cases pre-1997; informs whether immigration law is "succinct and straightforward")
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (manifest injustice standard for post-sentence plea withdrawal)
State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (2004) (R.C. 2943.031(D) governs plea advisements about deportation and affects plea-withdrawal review)