Garcia-Navarro v. State of Oregon

"A trial counsel's obligation is to advise clients that guilty pleas to almost any drug offense will result in 'presumptively mandatory' deportation." Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1483 (2010).

Defendant appealed a conviction of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine and to endangering the welfare of a minor. Defendant assigned error to the denial of post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied effective assistance under the Sixth Amendment. Defendant argued that the lawyer who represented him did not advise him that his guilty plea would produce mandatory deportation proceedings, meaning he would not have entered the plea and would have insisted going to trial. In response, the State argued that Defendant made the choice to seek probation in hopes of staying “under the radar” and not bring the attention of federal immigration officials if he were not incarcerated. “A trial counsel’s obligation is to advise clients that guilty pleas to almost any drug offense will result in ‘presumptively mandatory’ deportation.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1483 (2010). The Court of Appeals held that the post-conviction court erred when it concluded that the performance of Defendant’s trial lawyer was not constitutionally deficient holding that “constitutionally competent counsel would have advised him that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation.” Reversed and remanded.