[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Romero, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1839.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2019-OHIO-1839 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. ROMERO, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Romero, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1839.] Criminal law—Motion to withdraw a guilty plea—Ineffective assistance of counsel arising from counsel’s alleged failure to advise a noncitizen client of immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea—Trial court’s advisement under R.C. 2943.031(A) that a guilty plea may have the consequence of deportation does not replace counsel’s duty to advise a client of the consequences of the plea. (No. 2017-0915—Submitted January 29, 2019—Decided May 15, 2019.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2016CA00201, 2017-Ohio-2950. _____________________ FRENCH, J. {¶ 1} In this appeal, we address the standard for ruling on a criminal defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea when the motion is based on a claim SUPREME COURT OF OHIO of ineffective assistance of counsel arising from an attorney’s alleged failure to advise his noncitizen client of the immigration consequences of entering the plea. {¶ 2} Appellee, Carlos Romero, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, has been ordered to appear for deportation proceedings as a result of entering guilty pleas to charges of drug trafficking and possession. Romero seeks to withdraw his guilty pleas based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied Romero’s motion, but the Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed. Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals. {¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, with a caveat. We agree with the Fifth District that the trial court erred in denying Romero’s motion without considering the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and applied in the immigration context in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). We conclude, however, that the Fifth District’s remand order to the trial court for a full evidentiary hearing is premature. We instead remand the matter to the trial court to evaluate Romero’s motion and supporting materials in accordance with the legal framework that we set out in this opinion. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the matter to the trial court for application of the proper standard. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND {¶ 4} Carlos Romero, a native of Honduras, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals