Umesh Kaushal v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A04-1612-CR-2862
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Kaushal, an Indian national and Green Card holder who owns businesses in Indianapolis, was charged with Level 4 felony child molesting for allegedly fondling his 13-year-old stepdaughter.
- After initially withdrawing one plea deal, Kaushal accepted a second plea: guilty to Level 4 child molesting in exchange for a four-year sentence fully suspended (three years probation with home detention, one year non-reporting probation) and sex-offender registration.
- The written plea agreement included an immigration-advisory paragraph (which Kaushal initialed) warning the conviction could result in deportation, denial of re-entry, prohibition of citizenship, or loss of immigration benefits; the court also admonished Kaushal and found the plea knowing and voluntary at the plea hearing.
- Kaushal later learned from an immigration attorney he likely faced immediate detention and deportation, and filed a verified motion to withdraw his plea (before sentencing), claiming he was not adequately advised of the immigration consequences and that counsel was ineffective.
- The trial court held hearings, found the State conceded some deficient immigration advice by trial counsel but that Kaushal failed to show prejudice, denied the motion to withdraw, denied a motion to correct error, and stayed sentencing pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Kaushal's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw plea | Plea was not knowing/voluntary due to gross misapprehension of immigration consequences; wants to withdraw to avoid deportation and proceed to trial | Plea was knowing and voluntary; Kaushal was advised of immigration risk and now regrets plea | Court: No abuse of discretion — plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered |
| Whether ineffective assistance of trial counsel requires withdrawal of plea | Counsel failed to accurately advise of specific/immediate deportation consequences; that error materially affected Kaushal’s decision to plead | Counsel reviewed plea, warned of immigration risk and that Green Card would not be renewed; Kaushal still accepted benefits of plea | Court: Even assuming deficient advice, Kaushal failed to prove prejudice — no manifest injustice requiring withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig v. State, 883 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard: withdrawal before sentencing only if necessary to correct manifest injustice)
- Weatherford v. State, 697 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1998) (discussing trial court discretion on plea withdrawal)
- Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. 2001) (presumption favoring trial court ruling on plea withdrawal; Strickland framework applied)
- Coomer v. State, 652 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. 1995) (trial court duty to examine defendant before accepting a plea)
- McGraw v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (deference to trial court when evidence conflicts)
- Centers v. State, 501 N.E.2d 415 (Ind. 1986) (standard for upholding denial of plea-withdrawal absent abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1097 (Ind. 1996) (plea must be knowing, voluntary, intelligent)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (constitutional rights waived by a guilty plea)
- Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (failure to advise about deportation can be deficient performance; prejudice requires objective supporting facts)
- Black v. State, 54 N.E.3d 414 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (counsel must describe best/worst penal consequences to aid plea decision)
- Carrillo v. State, 982 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (Padilla principles: counsel must inform when immigration consequences are clear; otherwise warn of possible risk)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (attorney’s duty to advise noncitizen of immigration consequences of plea)
- Gulzar v. State, 971 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (defendant must show specific facts beyond a conclusory claim that better advice would have changed plea decision)
- Barajas v. State, 987 N.E.2d 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court advisement of deportation consequences can negate prejudice from counsel’s deficient advice)