Rojo-Garfias v. State

“When the law is not succinct and straightforward a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” See Padilla, at 559 US at 369.

Petitioner, who is not a United States citizen, filed for post-conviction relief, claiming his trial counsel did not inform him of the immigration consequences of his plea, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010). The post-conviction court denied relief and petitioner appealed. Petitioner argued that his affidavit evidenced his lack of understanding the certainty of his removal from the United States, but only understood that it was possible. The State argued that, pursuant to Boykin and Lyons, a defendant is not required to know of “actual” immigration consequences, but simply that some consequences “may” occur. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 US 238 (1969); Lyons v. Pearce, 298 Or 554 (1985). “When the law is not succinct and straightforward a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” See Padilla, at 559 US at 369.The Court evaluated post-conviction court factual findings, including petitioner’s affidavit in which he stated his understanding that a conviction would result in his removal. After reviewing the affidavit, the Court held that petitioner was accurately and explicitly informed by counsel of immigration consequences. Affirmed.