Trujillo v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1923
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Trujillo, a Mexican immigrant, pleaded guilty in 1999 to conspiracy to deal marijuana (class D) and in 2008 to conspiracy to deal marijuana (class C).
- His 1999 counsel did not advise him about potential immigration consequences of pleading guilty; the 2008 counsel similarly did not discuss immigration status.
- The PSI for 2008 incorrectly indicated Trujillo was a U.S. citizen, which he affirmed at sentencing.
- Trujillo was deported to Mexico after the 2008 conviction; he filed PCR petitions challenging both pleas as involuntary due to lack of immigration advisement.
- The trial court found no citizenship issue was raised and found there were no special circumstances establishing prejudice; the court denied PCR in both causes.
- The appellate court applied Segura and Williams to evaluate prejudice from improper guidance on penal consequences and held no prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's failure to advise on deportation risks was prejudicial | Trujillo | State | No prejudice; petition denied on both pleas |
| Whether pleas were knowingly entered despite immigration advisement failures | Trujillo | State | Pleas were knowingly entered; Williams rule applied to reject requirement to advise on deportation |
Key Cases Cited
- Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (special circumstances may show prejudice from improper penal-consequence advice)
- Sial v. State, 862 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (special circumstances can establish reasonable probability of choosing trial over plea)
- Williams v. State, 641 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (no requirement to inform noncitizens of deportation consequences in plea proceedings)