State v. Darmola

In Padilla v. Kentucky the Court announced that the obligation to accurately advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a plea not collateral to the criminal defense attorney function, but rather was integral to the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010).

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief wherein he alleged ineffective and inadequate assistance of counsel in providing advice as to the immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea to one court of first-degree online sexual corruption of a child, ORS 163.433. On appeal, Petitioner argued that, as interpreted by Padilla v. Kentucky, under the Sixth Amendment his criminal defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to inform Petitioner, clearly and without equivocation, that conviction of the charged offense would result in his removal from the United States and that his defenses to such removal would not be successful. In response, State argued that criminal defense counsel cannot be found deficient because he referred petitioner to immigration counsel, and “was entitled to rely on the opinion of experts.” In Padilla v. Kentucky the Court announced that the obligation to accurately advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a plea not collateral to the criminal defense attorney function, but rather was integral to the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010). The Court held that the post-conviction court did not err in concluding that counsel adequately advised petitioner because the record shows evidence that counsel had given petitioner proper advice on more than one occasion and adequately informed him of the risk under Padilla. Affirmed.