Suarez v. State, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 234

Suarez is a non-citizen who emigrated from Mexico in 1955 and has never become a U.S. citizen.
In 2009, Suarez pled guilty to Class C felony child molesting; Class A felony count was dismissed as part of the plea.
Trial court sentenced Suarez to four years with two years suspended to probation.
In 2010, Suarez filed a PCR petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not advising deportation risk.
At PCR, counsel testified he assumed Suarez was a U.S. citizen and did not discuss deportation; Suarez testified he would have gone to trial if advised of deportation risks.
The post-conviction court denied relief, finding no prejudice; on appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prejudice from failure to advise deportation	Suarez would have gone to trial if properly advised of deportation risk.	Plea benefit and low trial risk meant no prejudice despite misadvice.	No prejudice; unlikely to go to trial even if advised.
Proper application of Segura/Hill framework to deportation advisement	Special circumstances and objective facts show likelihood of trial if advised.	Special circumstances exist but do not overcome substantial plea benefit and trial likelihood.	Special circumstances shown, but prejudice not established.

Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (two-tier approach to guilty-plea ineffective assistance claims; objective likelihood of trial required)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court 1985) (predictions of trial outcome considered in evaluating plea decisions)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (deportation is a critical consequence of conviction)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
Vermillion v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 1999) (prejudice required for ineffective-assistance claims)
Grinstead v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2006) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in Indiana)