State v. Estrella

“[W]hen the deportation consequence is truly clear… the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 369, 130 S Ct 1473, 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010). “When the law is not succinct and straightforward … a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a non-citizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” Id.

Petitioner is a Mexican citizen residing in the United States with no legal immigration status. He pleaded guilty and was convicted under ORS 813.010 for driving under the influence of intoxicants. After this conviction, petitioner sought post-conviction relief arguing that his trial counsel was “constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution for failing to adequately inform him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea”. The post-conviction court denied relief and petitioner appealed, assigning error to post-conviction court’s ruling. “[W]hen the deportation consequence is truly clear… the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 369, 130 S Ct 1473, 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010).  “When the law is not succinct and straightforward … a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a non-citizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” Id. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner failed to show that the specific immigration consequences of his plea were clear and easily ascertainable, and the only advice that his trial counsel was required to provide was that under Padilla. Affirmed.