State v. Kostyuchchenko
8 N.E.3d 353
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Kostyuchenko was indicted on two counts of OVI and one count of failure to comply with police; he pled guilty to one OVI and the failure-to-comply count in exchange for dismissal of the other OVI count.
- The trial court accepted the pleas and convicted him on the failure-to-comply count, sentencing him to one year in confinement.
- Kostyuchenko later moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1, claiming his counsel failed to accurately advise him about immigration consequences under Padilla.
- At hearing, trial counsel testified he believed Kostyuchenko’s conviction would be deportable but that Kostyuchenko cared mainly about avoiding prison; counsel did not discuss relief from deportation.
- An immigration lawyer testified that the offense could mandatorily trigger deportation as an aggravated felony under federal law.
- The trial court granted withdrawal, finding a Padilla violation and substantial prejudice, and the plea was withdrawn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawal was proper under Crim.R. 32.1 | State: Padilla required accurate immigration advice; prejudice shown | Kostyuchenko: trial counsel deficient, causing involuntary plea | Yes; court did not abuse discretion in granting withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires accurate deportation advice in plea negotiations)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (ineffective assistance standard for guilty pleas)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (voluntary and intelligent choice in pleas)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (Ohio standard for plea knowing and voluntary)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (prejudice analysis for ineffective assistance in pleas)