State v. Kona (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 539
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Defendant Issa Kona, a lawful permanent resident, was indicted for robbery after an alleged 2006 shoplifting incident and pleaded not guilty.
- Kona entered the Cuyahoga County pretrial diversion program (approved by prosecutor and court) in 2006; the program required a written "Admission of Guilt" as a condition of entry.
- Kona signed a written admission describing taking a battery charger; he completed diversion and the state dismissed and the court sealed the case in 2007.
- Kona later learned the admission could constitute a "conviction" under federal immigration law (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(48)(A)) and jeopardize his naturalization and residency; he moved to vacate the admission and dismissal for lack of immigration advisement under R.C. 2943.031(A).
- The trial court denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed, holding R.C. 2943.031 did not apply because Kona had not entered a guilty or no-contest plea on the record.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted discretionary review and held that R.C. 2943.031(A)’s immigration advisement is required when a noncitizen admits sufficient facts for a finding of guilt as part of a pretrial diversion program, and that Kona satisfied the statutory criteria to vacate the admission and dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2943.031(A) advisement is required when a noncitizen admits facts to enter a pretrial diversion program | Kona: an admission that "admits sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt" is equivalent to a plea for immigration purposes, so the court must give the R.C. 2943.031 advisement | State: R.C. 2943.031 applies only to guilty or no-contest pleas accepted on the record; diversion admissions are not pleas, so advisement not required | Held: Advisement is required because such admissions trigger the federal definition of "conviction" and R.C. 2943.031 protects noncitizens from immigration consequences of convictions |
| Whether Kona met the federal definition of "conviction" for immigration purposes | Kona: his written admission plus diversion supervision and conditions constitute a federal "conviction" under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(48)(A) | State: (implicit) diversion dismissal means no conviction under state law, so different result should follow | Held: Kona’s written admission plus imposed restraints satisfied the two-pronged federal definition (admission of facts + judge-imposed restraint), creating immigration-meaningful conviction |
| Whether failure to give the advisement requires vacatur under R.C. 2943.031(D) | Kona: court failed to advise him before the admission, he is noncitizen, and the admission may subject him to deportation—so statutory relief is required | State: trial court complied with applicable procedures for diversion; R.C. 2943.031 inapplicable | Held: All four statutory elements satisfied; trial court abused discretion by denying relief—vacatur and allowance to plead not guilty required |
| Remedy and effect on immigration consequences | Kona: vacatur of the admission and dismissal will eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes | State: argued procedure did not obligate vacatur because no plea was entered | Held: Court must vacate the admission and dismissal and allow Kona to plead not guilty; vacation recognized for immigration purposes when based on procedural defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (deportation consequences are central to plea advice and part of the penalty for noncitizen defendants)
- State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (Ohio 2004) (R.C. 2943.031 creates a statutory right to withdraw plea when immigration advisement not given; relief available post-conviction without manifest-injustice standard)
- Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006) (vacated convictions remain invalid for immigration purposes when vacatur is based on procedural or substantive defects)
- Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2001) (discusses treatment of deferred adjudication and admission-of-facts approaches to immigration "conviction")