State v. Romero (Slip Opinion)
129 N.E.3d 404
| Ohio | 2019Background
- Carlos Romero, a Honduran lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in Ohio to drug-related felonies and later faced federal removal proceedings based on those convictions.
- At the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy the trial judge read the R.C. 2943.031(A) admonition that a noncitizen "may" face deportation; Romero said he understood and pleaded guilty. He later was detained by ICE and served a notice to appear.
- Romero filed a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences (Padilla claim).
- The trial court denied the motion, relying on its on-the-record advisement under R.C. 2943.031(A) and Romero’s affirmative responses at the plea hearing.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a hearing; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment that the trial court applied the wrong legal analysis (Strickland/Padilla) but remanded for the trial court to apply the correct two-prong standard (rather than ordering an evidentiary hearing outright).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Romero) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postsentence plea-withdrawal based on counsel’s failure to advise of immigration consequences requires Strickland analysis | Romero: Padilla error; counsel failed to inform him deportation was a consequence, entitling him to withdraw plea | State: Trial court complied with Crim.R.11 and R.C.2943.031(A); that advisement suffices and no abuse of discretion occurred | Court: Strickland two-prong (deficiency + prejudice) governs Padilla claims; trial court erred by relying solely on its R.C.2943.031(A)/Crim.R.11 colloquy and must evaluate under Strickland/Padilla on remand |
| Whether the trial court’s R.C.2943.031(A) advisement cures counsel’s alleged failure to advise | Romero: Judicial advisement does not substitute for counsel’s duty under Padilla | State: The court’s warning shows Romero knew the risk, negating prejudice | Held: Judicial advisement does not resolve the first Strickland prong (counsel performance), though it may be relevant on prejudice under the second prong |
| What standard of proof and factors apply to the prejudice inquiry | Romero: He would have gone to trial and avoided deportation but for counsel’s failures | State: Romero affirmed understanding at plea; contemporaneous record negates reasonable probability of going to trial | Held: Prejudice requires a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, defendant would have insisted on trial; courts should assess totality of circumstances (e.g., importance of avoiding deportation, connections to U.S., contemporaneous statements, judicial advisals) |
| Whether remand must require an evidentiary hearing | Romero/Appellate court: Remand for full evidentiary hearing | State: Trial court’s denial was proper without hearing | Held: Ohio Supreme Court remanded for application of the correct legal framework; declined to mandate an evidentiary hearing as premature—trial court to weigh pleadings, transcript, affidavit(s), and factors to decide whether a hearing is warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise noncitizen whether plea carries a risk of deportation)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying Strickland to guilty pleas; prejudice standard for plea withdrawal)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (distinguishing due-process plea colloquy from counsel’s Sixth Amendment duty)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (contemporaneous evidence required to substantiate a defendant’s assertion he would have gone to trial)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio standard on post-plea withdrawal motions and hearings)