State v. Yazici
2011 Ohio 583
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Armagan Yazici was indicted in Stark County on two counts of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11) on February 26, 2010.
- On April 22, 2010, Yazici entered a negotiated guilty plea to both counts pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C).
- The Crim.R. 11(C) form included a provision warning that non-citizens may face deportation or other immigration consequences from a conviction.
- The trial court conducted on-the-record discussions confirming Yazici understood possible immigration consequences and that counsel had discussed these with her.
- The court accepted the plea and sentenced Yazici; the defense later challenged the representation as ineffective for failing to inform her about deportation risks.
- The appellate court analyzed the claim under Strickland and Bradley, referencing Padilla and Gallegos-Martinez, and ultimately affirmed the conviction, ruling no prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s performance was ineffective for failing to advise deportation risk | Yazici | Yazici | No prejudice; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (counsel must inform noncitizens of deportation risk)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard; performance and prejudice prongs)
- Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (dual-prong prejudice standard in Ohio)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 129 S. Ct. 1411 (2009) (requires prejudice showing after deficient performance)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (prejudice must undermine confidence in outcome)