State v. Tejeda, 2011 Ohio 4960

Tejeda, a Dominican immigrant, pleaded guilty in 1999 to one count of attempted drug possession under a plea agreement.
The court advised Tejeda that he could be deported and he affirmed understanding before accepting the plea.
In 2006 Tejeda was arrested again for drug possession; he pleaded guilty in 2007 and was sentenced to community control.
Deportation proceedings were not initiated until 2010, after the 2007 drug conviction.
Tejeda moved to withdraw his 1999 plea claiming improper advisement of immigration consequences; the trial court denied the motion after finding subjective understanding and that deportation arose from the second conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2943.031 in advising noncitizen of immigration consequences	State argues substantial compliance supports denial	Tejeda argues lack of proper advisement prejudices him	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed given substantial compliance and lack of prejudice.

State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (2004-Ohio-6894) (mandatory advisement with flexibility; substantial compliance standard; prejudice required for immigration-consequence claims)
State v. Naoum, 2009-Ohio-618 (2009-Ohio-618) (two of three advisements insufficient; analyzed prejudice and timeliness; nonetheless not dispositive here)
State v. Abouelhana, 2009-Ohio-5838 (2009-Ohio-5838) (timeliness and prejudice considerations in R.C. 2943.031 claims)
State v. Schlaf, 2008-Ohio-6151 (2008-Ohio-6151) (delay between plea and motion not alone dispositive; prejudice considered)
State v. Zuniga, 2005-Ohio-2078 (2005-Ohio-2078) (framing of substantial compliance and prejudice in immigration-consequence cases)