State v. Romero
2017 Ohio 2950
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Carlos Romero, a Honduran-born lawful permanent resident, pled guilty in Ohio to possession and trafficking of marijuana and possession of cocaine; he was sentenced to three years of community control and other conditions.
- After sentencing Romero moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, alleging his counsel failed to advise him of immigration (deportation) consequences.
- The trial court denied the motion solely because it found the court had complied with Ohio’s R.C. 2943.031 advisement warning noncitizens that convictions "may" have immigration consequences.
- Romero argued ineffective assistance under Padilla v. Kentucky — that counsel failed to inform him his plea would result in deportation — and sought withdrawal under Crim.R. 32.1 and R.C. 2943.031(D).
- The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing to develop whether Romero would have rationally rejected the plea absent counsel’s alleged error, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have granted post‑sentence withdrawal of plea under Crim.R. 32.1 / R.C. 2943.031 | State: Court complied with R.C. 2943.031 advisement; plea therefore knowing and voluntary | Romero: Counsel failed to advise of deportation risk; plea infected by ineffective assistance and should be withdrawn | Reversed and remanded — trial court abused discretion by denying without a hearing to develop prejudice/rational‑decision record |
| Whether compliance with R.C. 2943.031 alone precludes relief for Padilla claim | State: statutory advisement cures the deficiency | Romero: statutory warning does not necessarily eliminate Padilla prejudice; advisory language may be insufficient where deportation consequence is clear | Court: R.C. 2943.031 compliance is a factor but not dispositive; may not preclude showing prejudice under Padilla |
| Standard and burden for proving ineffective assistance based on immigration advice | State: general Strickland standard applies; trial court relied on plea colloquy | Romero: Padilla requires counsel to advise when deportation consequence is clear; must show prejudice (would have rejected plea) | Court: Padilla and Strickland govern; prejudice requires a reasonable probability the defendant would have rejected plea; remand to develop record on that point |
| Whether a hearing was required before denying the motion | State: denial based on record/colloquy sufficient | Romero: hearing needed to develop credibility and whether rejection would be rational | Held: Hearing should have been held; without one denial was an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen when deportation consequence of plea is clear)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice in plea context requires showing a rational defendant would have rejected the plea)
- Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962) (guilty plea is a grave and complete admission)
- State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (2004) (R.C. 2943.031 provides statutory mechanism to withdraw pleas and discussion of when hearings aid review)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (post‑sentence plea withdrawal allowed only to correct manifest injustice)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (importance of hearing to develop record on plea‑withdrawal motions)