State v. Cardenas, 2016 Ohio 5537

Defendant Sebastian Cardenas, a lawful permanent resident since 1989 with U.S.-citizen wife and children, pled guilty in 2011 to two fourth-degree felony cocaine-trafficking counts as part of a plea deal and was sentenced to concurrent nine-month terms; a fifth-degree count was dismissed.
Two weeks after sentencing, DHS served Cardenas with a notice charging removability; he later was ordered deported by the immigration court, the BIA affirmed, and the Sixth Circuit denied relief.
In March 2015 (nearly four years after the DHS notice), Cardenas moved post‑sentence to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2943.031 advisals and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of deportation risk.
At the withdrawal hearing both Cardenas and his trial counsel testified: counsel admitted he did not research immigration consequences and told Cardenas he likely would not be deported; Cardenas acknowledged the court’s advisement and said he understood it but relied on counsel’s reassurance.
The trial court denied the motion as untimely, barred by res judicata, and because Cardenas failed to show manifest injustice (finding no prejudice from counsel’s conduct); Cardenas appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cardenas)	Held
1. Whether the trial court substantially complied with R.C. 2943.031(A) advisals	The court substantially complied; defendant conceded he understood the advisal at the lower court	Trial court failed to advise of all statutory immigration consequences (deportation, exclusion, denial of naturalization)	Waived by defendant on appeal; majority affirms that substantial‑compliance challenge is not before the court
2. Timeliness of motion to withdraw plea	Motion was untimely and delay undermines credibility; timeliness is a discretionary factor	Delay was reasonable given immigration proceedings and appeals	Motion was untimely; four‑year delay was unreasonable; trial court did not abuse discretion
3. Ineffective assistance of counsel (manifest injustice under Crim.R. 32.1)	Even if counsel erred, defendant cannot show prejudice because (a) he conceded the court’s advisal, (b) conviction likely inevitable at trial, and (c) delay undermines his claim	Counsel misadvised/failed to advise about deportation; but had he known, he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial	Counsel’s performance was deficient, but defendant failed to show prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have rejected plea given evidence and delay); motion denied
4. Res judicata bar	Res judicata applies	Res judicata does not bar relief	Moot: trial court considered merits and denied motion; appellate court affirms denial

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen client of clear deportation consequences; failure can be deficient performance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (2004) (R.C. 2943.031 requires only substantial compliance; statute provides independent remedy to withdraw plea)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (to show prejudice from counsel’s error in guilty‑plea context, defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty)