State v. Khoshknabi
111 N.E.3d 813
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mohammad Khoshknabi, an Iranian-born lawful permanent resident, was indicted in Cuyahoga County for passing bad checks and theft; original felony charges were amended to misdemeanors as part of a plea deal. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year of community control on each count.
- Khoshknabi had prior criminal convictions (1997 sexual imposition) and previously faced removal proceedings in 2005; a 1994 Franklin County bad-check conviction had been vacated in 2006 during earlier immigration litigation.
- After the 2017 misdemeanor convictions, federal authorities initiated removal proceedings and DHS detained Khoshknabi in June 2017.
- Khoshknabi moved post-sentence under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing counsel gave affirmative, erroneous immigration advice — assuring him (or saying it was highly unlikely) that pleading to misdemeanors would not lead to deportation — and that he relied on that advice.
- At the withdrawal hearing both the defendant and his trial counsel testified: counsel acknowledged he was not an immigration specialist, conceded he gave inaccurate reassurance about deportation risk, and said he would have handled the case differently had he known of the earlier removal proceedings.
- The trial court denied the motion; on appeal the Eighth District reversed, vacated the guilty pleas, and remanded, finding counsel’s immigration misadvice was deficient under Padilla and that Khoshknabi was prejudiced (would likely have insisted on trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post‑sentence plea withdrawal is warranted based on ineffective assistance of counsel for incorrect immigration advice | State: trial court complied with R.C. 2943.031(A); no prejudice because defendant knew immigration could be implicated, did not ask questions, and counsel did not promise no deportation. | Khoshknabi: counsel affirmatively misadvised him that pleading to misdemeanors made deportation unlikely; he relied on that advice and would have gone to trial. | Reversed: counsel’s affirmative misadvice about deportation was deficient and prejudicial; plea vacated. |
| Whether the trial court’s on‑the‑record R.C. 2943.031(A) advisement cures counsel’s incorrect specific advice | State: statutory advisement cured any prejudice from counsel’s advice; defendant confirmed understanding and asked no questions. | Khoshknabi: counsel’s specific, affirmative reassurance was relied on and the generic court advisement did not negate that reliance. | Trial court advisement did not necessarily cure prejudice; here it did not because defendant reasonably relied on counsel’s erroneous assurance. |
| Whether defendant established the ‘‘reasonable probability’’ he would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial | State: no contemporaneous proof; defendant’s other concerns (restitution, probation) were primary. | Khoshknabi: testified he wanted to fight the charges; counsel corroborated; strong U.S. ties made trial a rational choice. | Held defendant showed reasonable probability he would have gone to trial — prejudice prong of Strickland satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen defendants about deportation risks of a plea and misadvice can be deficient performance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. _ (2017) (contemporaneous evidence and factors for assessing whether defendant would have refused plea if properly advised about deportation)
- Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (plea waives claims of ineffective assistance except to the extent the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (post‑sentence plea withdrawal requires showing of manifest injustice)