[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Bozso, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3779.] 

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. 2020-OHIO-3779

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. BOZSO, APPELLEE. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Bozso, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3779.] 

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—Defendant must show 

that counsel’s performance was deficient and must demonstrate prejudice 

resulting from counsel’s deficient performance—Prejudice not 

demonstrated—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed. 

(No. 2018-1007—Submitted March 11, 2020—Decided July 23, 2020.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 106149, 

2018-Ohio-1750. 

_____________________ 

FRENCH, J.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 2

{¶ 1} This appeal requires us to determine, once again, whether a noncitizen 

criminal defendant may withdraw a guilty plea on the grounds that his attorney 

failed to advise the defendant of the adverse immigration consequences of his plea. 

{¶ 2} In State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468, 2019-Ohio-1839, 129 N.E.3d 

404, we held that when a noncitizen criminal defendant alleges ineffective 

assistance of counsel arising from the plea process, the defendant must meet the 

two-prong test 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). Romero at ¶ 1, 

3, and 14. First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. 

Id. at ¶ 15. When an attorney’s noncitizen client is considering a plea, counsel must 

inform her client whether the plea carries a risk of deportation. Id.; Padilla at 374. 

Second, the defendant must demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel’s 

deficient performance. Romero at ¶ 16; Strickland at 687. 

{¶ 3} We now consider the second part of this test to determine whether 

defendant-appellee, Emeric Bozso, has met the requisite showing of prejudice—

specifically, that he would not have entered a guilty plea but for the erroneous 

advice of his plea-stage counsel. Romero at ¶ 16; Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 

106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). Based on the record before us, we conclude 

that Bozso has not demonstrated prejudice arising from his counsel’s deficient 

performance. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Eighth District Court of 

Appeals and reinstate Bozso’s convictions. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

{¶ 4} Bozso, a Romanian citizen, was admitted to the United States in 1986 

as a refugee. He has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 

1987. 

{¶ 5} In June 2016, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned an 18-count

indictment against Bozso for the alleged rape of two victims in June 1996 and in 
January Term, 2020 

3

November 1996. For the June 1996 incident, which involved a 12-year-old female 

victim, the indictment charged Bozso with six counts of rape (all first-degree 

felonies), three counts of gross sexual imposition (third- and fourth-degree 

felonies), six counts of complicity, and one count of kidnapping (a first-degree 

felony). For the November 1996 incident, which involved an adult female victim, 

the indictment charged Bozso with one count of rape and one count of kidnapping 

(both first-degree felonies). The indictment alleged that Bozso used or carried a 

firearm while committing both November offenses and included a one-year and 

three-year firearm specification for each count. 

{¶ 6} After negotiations with the state, Bozso pleaded guilty in November 

2016 to one count of sexual battery and one count of attempted abduction. The 

record before us contains no transcript of the plea hearing. We therefore do not 

know what the trial court actually said to Bozso as part of its required plea colloquy 

under Crim.R.11. But the November 8, 2016 nunc pro tunc entry journalizing the 

plea notes Bozso’s noncitizen status and indicates that the trial court gave Bozso an 

advisement in accordance with R.C. 2943.031. That statute requires trial courts to 

advise a noncitizen defendant prior to accepting a guilty or no-contest plea to a 

felony (or misdemeanor other than a minor misdemeanor) that entering the plea 

“ ‘may have the consequences of deportation’ ” from the United States. R.C. 

2943.031(A). 

{¶ 7} The trial court sentenced Bozso to one year of prison for each count 

but suspended the sentences and imposed two years of probation for each 

conviction. 

{¶ 8} In January 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security 

issued a notice initiating deportation proceedings against Bozso under Section 

237(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). 8 U.S.C. 

1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (iii). These provisions authorize the removal of any noncitizen 

convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 4

single scheme of criminal misconduct, id. at Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), or convicted 

of an aggravated felony, id. at Section 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii). The notice cited Bozso’s 

November 2016 convictions for sexual battery and attempted abduction and an 

additional conviction in 2001 for attempted theft as the bases for deportation. 

{¶ 9} In June 2017, Bozso filed a motion to withdraw his November 2016 

guilty pleas on the grounds that his counsel provided improper advice as to the 

potential immigration consequences of his pleas. In support of the motion, Bozso 

attached his own affidavit, in which he says that he was informed at the time of 

entering his pleas that INA Section 212(c) would provide potential relief from 

deportation or immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Bozso states that he 

later learned he had been misinformed and that Section 212(c) would not provide 

him any relief. Bozso also states that he would not have pleaded guilty had he 

known that relief was unavailable to him. 

{¶ 10} Former INA Section 212(c) gave the United States Attorney General 

discretion, upon application, to waive deportation for certain lawful permanent 

residents, including those who had committed an aggravated felony. In 1996, 

Congress repealed Section 212(c), effective April 1, 1997. Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub. L. No. 104-

208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (enacted September 30, 1996), Section 304(b). The United 

States Supreme Court held, however, that the repeal of Section 212(c) does not 

apply retroactively, and discretionary relief under Section 212(c) remains available 

to noncitizens “whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements and who, 

notwithstanding those convictions, would have been eligible for § 212(c) relief at 

the time of their plea under the law then in effect.” Immigration & Naturalization 

Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 326, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001),

superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Nasrallah v. Barr, ___ U.S. 

___, 140 S.Ct. 1683, 207 L.Ed.2d 111 (2020). A lawful permanent resident who 

pleaded guilty to a deportable crime before April 1, 1997, the effective date of the 
January Term, 2020 

5

provisions repealing Section 212(c), might be eligible for the waiver. But since 

Bozso entered his guilty plea in 2016, he was not eligible for any relief under 

Section 212(c). 

{¶ 11} In June 2017, the trial court held a hearing on Bozso’s motion to 

withdraw his guilty pleas. Bozso did not call any witnesses. The state called as a 

witness Bozso’s plea-stage counsel, who testified that he consulted with an 

immigration attorney as to the possible immigration consequences of Bozso 

entering a plea agreement. Bozso’s plea-stage counsel testified that on September 

21, 2016, the consulting immigration attorney sent him the following e-mail: 

The sex offense conviction will lead to the client being 

placed into deportation. As an aggravated felony, the client would 

be subject to mandatory detention while the case proceeds through 

the immigration court. As a very preliminary conclusion, I would 

state that if the June date is adhered to rather than the November 

case, that the client would have some relief available to him. 

Specifically, 212(c) relief. This relief is discretionary to the court 

and by no means should the client believe that it is assured that he 

would not be ordered deported as a result of a conviction for this 

offense. 

I will supply a more comprehensive advisement for you 

shortly. 

{¶ 12} Bozso’s plea-stage counsel testified that if the immigration attorney 

later provided Bozso a more complete advisement, it went directly to Bozso without 

counsel’s knowledge. Counsel also testified that the trial court judge read verbatim 

the required statutory advisement in R.C. 2943.031(A) advising Bozso of the 

possible consequences of his plea. The state attempted to elicit testimony from 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 6

Bozso’s counsel as to the primary concern driving Bozso’s decision to enter a guilty 

plea. Counsel invoked attorney-client privilege and refused to answer. As a result, 

there is no testimony, aside from the statements in his affidavit, as to Bozso’s 

motives for entering his guilty pleas. 

{¶ 13} About a month after the hearing, the trial court denied Bozso’s

motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. The court concluded that the advisement from 

the consulting immigration attorney “makes it clear that [Bozso] should not have 

relied upon the possibility that he would obtain relief from deportation, and that his 

doing so appears to have been a case of hope over reality.” 

{¶ 14} The Eighth District reversed the judgment of the trial court. The 

court of appeals applied the Strickland two-part test to determine the deficiency of 

counsel’s performance and the prejudice arising from that deficiency. On the first 

prong, the court concluded that the law is “ ‘succinct and straightforward’ ” that 

relief under INA Section 212(c) was not available to Bozso and that counsel was 

therefore “deficient for not definitely determining the deportation consequences” 

of Bozso’s plea. 2018-Ohio-1750 at ¶ 20, citing Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369, 130 S.Ct. 

1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284. The Eighth District also concluded that Bozso’s affidavit 

was sufficient to establish that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him, 

since he averred that he “would not have pled guilty * * * had he known that relief 

from immigration consequences pursuant to INA § 212(c) was wholly unavailable 

to him.” Id. at ¶ 24. 

{¶ 15} This court accepted the state’s discretionary appeal, held the matter 

for our decision in State v. Romero, and stayed briefing. 2018-Ohio-4092. After 

the release of our decision in Romero, we lifted the stay and ordered briefing. 2019-

Ohio-2496. The state’s appeal presents one proposition of law: 

A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a noncitizen defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where, prior 
January Term, 2020 

7

to entering a guilty plea, the trial court had complied with Crim.R. 

11 and provided the deportation advisement pursuant to R.C. 

2943.031, and when counsel had warned defendant that his guilty

plea would place him into deportation proceedings with limited 

options for relief. 

II. ANALYSIS 

{¶ 16} As we summarized earlier in this opinion, the two-prong test applied 

in Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468, 2019-Ohio-1839, 129 N.E.3d 404, governs whether 

a noncitizen criminal defendant may withdraw a guilty plea on the grounds that his 

attorney failed to advise him of the adverse immigration consequences of his plea. 

Id. at ¶ 3. 

A. The deficient-performance prong 

{¶ 17} First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was 

deficient. Id. at ¶ 15, citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 

674. When an attorney’s noncitizen client is considering a plea, counsel must 

advise the client whether the plea carries a risk of deportation. Id., citing Padilla, 

559 U.S. at 374, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284. We have acknowledged that 

immigration law can be complex and that the deportation consequences of a 

particular plea will not always be clear. Id. at ¶ 26, citing Padilla at 369. In cases 

when the law “is not succinct and straightforward,” an attorney “need do no more 

than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of 

adverse immigration consequences.” Padilla at 369. “But when the deportation 

consequence is truly clear, * * * the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.” 

Id.

{¶ 18} The Eighth District concluded that counsel’s performance was 

deficient because the law was “succinct and straightforward” that relief under INA 

Section 212(c) was not available to Bozso. In its jurisdictional memorandum, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 8

state argued that the Eighth District erred because the law was not clear as to 

Bozso’s eligibility for relief under Section 212. The state, however, has abandoned 

that argument in its merit brief and addresses only the second prong under 

Strickland. We therefore assume that the state no longer challenges the Eighth 

District’s finding that Bozso satisfied the first prong. See E. Liverpool v. 

Columbiana Cty. Budget Comm., 116 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2007-Ohio-5505, 876 

N.E.2d 575, ¶ 3 (argument not raised in party’s brief is deemed abandoned). We 

therefore turn to the question whether Bozso has satisfied the second prong of his 

ineffective-assistance claim. 

B. The prejudice prong 

{¶ 19} To establish prejudice under the second prong of Romero, Bozso 

must show that there is “ ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he 

would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’ ” Romero, 

156 Ohio St.3d 468, 2019-Ohio-1839, 129 N.E.3d 404, at ¶ 16, quoting Hill, 474 

U.S. at 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203. As set out in Lee v. United States, ___ 

U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1965-1969, 198 L.Ed.2d 476 (2017), and in Romero at 

¶ 29-33, courts should consider various factors to determine whether a defendant 

has demonstrated prejudice resulting from counsel’s erroneous advice. When 

considering those factors, we find that the evidence here does not support a finding 

of prejudice. 

1. The defendant’s connections to the United States 

{¶ 20} Bozso was admitted to the United States as a refugee from Romania 

in 1986 when he was 21 years old. He has resided in this country for over 30 years 

and for nearly all of his adult life. If Bozso’s connections to the United States were 

the only factor, it would be reasonably probable to find that Bozso would not have 

pleaded guilty had he known it would lead to deportation. 
January Term, 2020 

9

2. The importance that the defendant placed on avoiding deportation 

{¶ 21} Next, we consider evidence of the importance that Bozso placed on 

avoiding deportation as the motive for pleading guilty. See Romero at ¶ 31, citing 

Lee at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1967-1968. In his affidavit in support of his motion to 

withdraw his guilty pleas, Bozso states that he would not have pleaded guilty had 

he known that relief from deportation was not available to him under INA Section 

212(c). Courts, however, “should not upset a plea solely because of post hoc

assertions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded but for his attorney’s 

deficiencies.” Lee at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1967; accord Romero at ¶ 28. We must look 

to contemporaneous evidence that substantiates Bozso’s statement. Lee at ___, 137 

S.Ct. at 1967; accord Romero at ¶ 28. And we find that evidence lacking here. 

{¶ 22} In Lee, the record contained at least three sources of 

contemporaneous evidence showing that deportation was the determinative issue in 

the defendant’s decision whether to enter a guilty plea. First, Lee himself testified 

at the evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. Id., ___ U.S. at ___, 

137 S.Ct. at 1963, 198 L.Ed.2d 476. Lee’s testimony established that he repeatedly 

asked his attorney whether there was any risk of deportation and that his attorney 

became upset when Lee repeatedly inquired about his immigration status. Id. 

According to Lee, his attorney assured him that there was nothing to worry about 

and incorrectly advised him that if deportation was not in the plea agreement, the 

government could not deport him. Id. 

{¶ 23} Second, Lee’s plea-stage counsel also testified at the hearing and 

acknowledged that if he had known Lee would be deported upon pleading guilty, 

he would have advised him to go to trial. Id.

{¶ 24} And finally, the record of Lee’s plea colloquy demonstrated that he 

did not understand the trial court’s advisement that pleading guilty could result in 

deportation. Id. at 1968. When the trial court judge asked how the advisement

affected his decision, Lee responded, “ ‘I don’t understand.’ ” Id. When Lee turned 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 10 

to his counsel for advice, the attorney assured him the judge’s statement was only 

a standard warning. Id. The court concluded that the record contained “substantial 

and uncontroverted evidence” that but for his counsel’s errors, Lee would not have 

pleaded guilty. Id. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1969. 

{¶ 25} We point to Lee not to demand, as the dissent contends, that Bozso 

must present evidence just as good as the “substantial and uncontroverted” evidence 

that supported Lee’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Rather, Lee presents 

examples of the types of contemporaneous evidence that would support a 

defendant’s statement that he would have rejected a plea offer but for counsel’s 

deficient performance. 

{¶ 26} Bozso has not presented any contemporaneous evidence that 

avoiding deportation motivated his decisionmaking process at or around the time 

he entered his guilty pleas. Unlike the defendant in Lee, Bozso did not appear at 

the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor did he call any witnesses. 

According to Bozso’s appellate counsel, who also represented him at the hearing 

on his motion to withdraw the guilty pleas, Bozso was detained by immigration 

officials at the time of his hearing. But counsel also concedes that he did not seek 

leave to transport Bozso to the hearing, and he affirmatively waived Bozso’s 

presence at the hearing. 

{¶ 27} At the evidentiary hearing, the state attempted to elicit testimony 

from Bozso’s plea-stage counsel as to the primary concern driving Bozso’s decision 

to enter a guilty plea. Counsel declined to answer on the grounds of attorney-client 

privilege. Bozso was not present at the hearing, but he had not waived the attorneyclient privilege beforehand. As a result, Bozso forfeited the opportunity to present 

the evidence most likely to support (or contradict) his claim—the discussions he 

had with counsel leading to his decision to accept the plea agreement instead of 

going to trial. 
January Term, 2020 

11 

{¶ 28} After negotiations with the state, Bozso pleaded guilty to one count 

of sexual battery and one count of attempted abduction. Bozso decided to plead 

guilty to sexual battery even though the immigration lawyer consulting with 

Bozso’s plea-stage counsel advised them that a “sex offense conviction” constitutes 

a conviction for an aggravated felony that will “subject [Bozso] to mandatory 

detention.” While the immigration attorney may have been mistaken about the 

possibility of relief from deportation under INA Section 212(c), he advised Bozso 

that he was offering a “very preliminary conclusion” that required a “more 

comprehensive advisement.” In no uncertain terms, the attorney also advised 

Bozso that relief under Section 212(c) is “discretionary” and “by no means should 

the client believe that it is assured that he would not be ordered deported as a result 

of a conviction for this offense.” Despite these unequivocal and specific warnings, 

Bozso still decided to enter a guilty plea for a deportable criminal offense. 

{¶ 29} When a defendant claims that he would not have entered a guilty

plea but for the ineffective assistance of counsel, the prejudice inquiry “focuses on 

a defendant’s decisionmaking.” Lee, ___ U.S. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1966, 198 

L.Ed.2d 476, citing Hill, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203. Bozso 

presents no contemporaneous evidence that but for his counsel’s erroneous advice, 

he would have made a different decision. 

3. Judicial advisement of immigration consequences 

{¶ 30} We also conclude that the trial court’s advisement about the 

immigration consequences of the defendant’s plea weighs against a finding of 

prejudice. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468, 2019-Ohio-1839, 129 N.E.3d 404, at ¶ 33. 

We do not know what actually happened at Bozso’s plea hearing because we do 

not have a transcript. But the November 8, 2016 nunc pro tunc entry journalizing 

his plea indicates that the trial court gave Bozso the required advisement in R.C. 

2943.031 warning Bozso of the possible immigration consequences of entering a 

guilty plea. Bozso’s plea-stage counsel also testified at the hearing on the motion 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 12 

to withdraw the pleas that the trial court read “verbatim” the required statutory 

advisement and was “careful” to inquire if Bozso “really understood the import of 

what that statutory language meant.” In contrast to Lee, there is nothing in the 

record to suggest that Bozso did not understand the trial court’s advisement that 

entering a guilty plea could result in deportation. 

4. The consequences of going to trial 

{¶ 31} We also consider the consequences that Bozso would have faced if 

he had gone to trial. See Romero at ¶ 30. And we conclude that this factor weighs 

against a finding of prejudice. Given the seriousness of the charges against Bozso, 

the consequences of taking a chance at trial were “markedly harsher than pleading.” 

Lee, __U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1969, 198 L.Ed. 2d 476. Bozso faced 18 counts 

including first-degree-felony rape, gross sexual imposition, complicity, and firstdegree-felony kidnapping. Some of the charges carried the possibility of life 

sentences with additional prison time for firearms specifications for the rape and 

kidnapping of Jane Doe 2. By pleading guilty to one count of sexual battery and 

one count of attempted abduction, Bozso significantly reduced his exposure to 

prison time. Given that he ultimately succeeded in avoiding a prison sentence 

altogether, Bozso’s decision to enter a plea rather than take his chances at trial does 

not seem irrational. 

{¶ 32} While Bozso argues in passing in his motion for withdrawing his

guilty pleas that he would have been successful at trial, he did not present any 

evidence or testimony supporting that conclusory statement. The dissent speculates 

that the trial court might have dismissed Bozso’s charges in response to one of 

Bozso’s three motions to dismiss arguing preindictment delay or that a jury could 

have acquitted Bozso because DNA tests excluded Bozso as a contributor in one of 

his cases. The record suggests, however, that Bozso may not have been entirely 

confident about his likelihood of success. After filing each of his three motions to 
January Term, 2020 

13 

dismiss, Bozso sought continuances to pursue plea negotiations with the state; the 

court’s entries reflect at least seven continuances at the request of the defendant. 

{¶ 33} But more importantly, none of these arguments is properly before 

us. Aside from a passing reference to the exclusion of Bozso’s DNA in one of the 

cases, counsel did not present any of these arguments to the trial court in the 

evidentiary hearing on Bozso’s motion to withdraw his pleas. This is the extent of 

what counsel argued would likely have happened if Bozso had gone to trial instead 

of pleading guilty: 

As far as the evidence in these cases, there were two alleged 

victims. I have not seen all the discovery. In the one matter his 

DNA was not involved. There were conflicting state— 

[Interjections by opposing counsel and the court.] 

Conflicting statements in the matter. There were issues 

surrounding the other alleged victim, your Honor. * * * It might be 

rational for someone who is absolutely going to be deported, is

going to have no possibility of relief, to reject a plea agreement and 

take his chances at trial. 

{¶ 34} Given our limited role as a reviewing court, “[w]e are not obligated 

to search the record or formulate legal arguments on behalf of the parties.” State v. 

Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19. And we 

can hardly find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Bozso’s motion 

to withdraw his pleas based on grounds that his counsel never presented to the trial 

court. See Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468, 2019-Ohio-1839, 129 N.E.3d 404, at ¶ 13 

(a trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed under an abuseof-discretion standard). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 14 

{¶ 35} Since counsel did not present any supporting contemporaneous 

evidence at the hearing, we can only speculate as to the factors that went into 

Bozso’s decisionmaking process. Accordingly, we conclude that Bozso has not 

met his burden of demonstrating that but for his counsel’s erroneous advice as to 

the possibility of relief from deportation under INA Section 212(c), he would not 

have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. The Eighth District 

erred in concluding otherwise. 

III. CONCLUSION 

{¶ 36} Based on the record before us, we conclude that Bozso has not met 

his burden of establishing that he would not have entered a guilty plea but for the 

erroneous advice of his plea-stage counsel. We therefore reverse the Eighth 

District’s judgment and reinstate the trial court’s judgment of conviction. 

Judgment reversed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 

DONNELLY, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by STEWART, J. 

_________________ 

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

{¶ 37} Respectfully, I dissent. When defendant-appellee, Emeric Bozso, 

was advised to plead guilty to criminal charges in 2016, there was a solid chance 

that the case against him would have ended in dismissal or acquittal. An e-mail 

exchange that was contemporaneous with Bozso’s guilty plea demonstrated that 

Bozso’s risk of deportation was a central concern. Bozso was erroneously led to 

believe that he had the possibility of discretionary relief from deportation under 

Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c) 

(repealed Sept. 30, 1996), which historically was “one of the principal benefits 

sought by defendants deciding whether to accept a plea offer or instead to proceed 

to trial,” Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 323, 121 

S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as 
January Term, 2020 

15 

stated in Nasrallah v. Barr, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1683, 207 L.Ed.2d 111 (2020). 

Deportation not only would cause Bozso to lose his permanent-residency status, 

but it also would separate him from his partner of 27 years, his five children, his 

friends, and his home, and from adequate medical care for his serious health 

conditions. Given the foregoing, it would have been abundantly rational for Bozso 

to choose to go to trial instead of pleading guilty. Because there is a reasonable 

probability that Bozso would not have pleaded guilty but for the erroneous advice 

he received regarding the possibility of relief from deportation, his plea-withdrawal 

motion should have been granted. We should affirm the judgment of the Eighth 

District Court of Appeals. 

{¶ 38} If not through outright affirmance, this case should be resolved 

through dismissal as having been improvidently allowed. Now that we have fully 

examined the merits of this case, it is clear that its consideration by this court should 

have ended after we released our decision in State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468, 

2019-Ohio-1839, 129 N.E.3d 404. In Romero, we provided valuable guidance 

regarding the standards that apply when a noncitizen criminal defendant seeks to 

withdraw a guilty plea based on the claim that defense counsel misinformed the 

defendant about the immigration consequences of the plea. In this case, the Eighth 

District Court of Appeals applied the very standards that we later promoted in 

Romero: it rejected the notion that a trial court can automatically cure the prejudice 

arising from defense counsel’s misinformation with a general advisement pursuant 

to R.C. 2943.031(A) and correctly noted that the reasonableness of a defendant’s 

decision to reject a plea deal is assessed by looking at the circumstances of the 

defendant’s case. See Romero at ¶ 19, 29. But the majority does not like how the 

Eighth District applied those standards to the specific facts of Bozso’s case and has 

taken upon itself to provide error correction. In doing so, the majority commits 

rather than corrects any errors. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 16 

I. Prejudice prong—analytical standards 

{¶ 39} The prejudice prong for challenges to guilty pleas based on claims 

of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant to “show that there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded 

guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” (Emphasis added.) Hill v. 

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). The majority 

subtly moves away from the correct prejudice standard by repeatedly omitting the 

essential words “reasonable probability” throughout its analysis and by 

emphasizing that Bozso’s evidence is not as good as the “ ‘substantial and 

uncontroverted’ ” evidence that supported the withdrawal of a guilty plea in Lee v. 

United States, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1958, 198 L.Ed.2d 476 (2017). Majority at 

¶ [page 14, line 12], quoting Lee at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1969. A reasonable probability 

is simply one that is “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 

(1984). The reasonable-probability standard is a lower standard than 

preponderance of the evidence. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406, 120 

S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 175, 106 S.Ct. 

988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986). Neither substantial evidence nor stringent but-for 

causation are required to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland. 

{¶ 40} Additionally, in the context of guilty pleas, the prejudice inquiry 

often centers on whether “a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been 

rational under the circumstances,” (emphasis added) Lee at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1968, 

quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 372, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 

(2010). The majority flips this inquiry on its head by examining the rationality of 

Bozso’s decision to accept a plea bargain. It looks like he got a pretty good deal, 

so what does it matter if he did not understand that he had zero chance of staying 

in the country? It matters quite a bit. If a defendant has been misinformed about 

facts that are critical to his decision to plead guilty, then his plea is not knowing, 
January Term, 2020 

17 

voluntary, or intelligent, let alone rational. See State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 

528, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). It does not comport with due process to conclude that 

there was no prejudice—despite the fact that the defendant was misinformed about 

a critical issue—just because some of the plea terms unrelated to that issue were 

favorable to the defendant. Our role in this aspect of the inquiry is to determine 

whether rejecting a guilty plea would have been a rational choice, not whether it 

was the only rational choice or the best possible choice. 

{¶ 41} Considering the foregoing standards, as well as the factors described 

in Lee at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1965-1969, and Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468, 2019-

Ohio-1839, 129 N.E.3d 404, at ¶ 29-33, Bozso’s decision to reject the plea bargain 

offered by the state would have been rational under the totality of the specific 

circumstances of his case. Bozso presented enough evidence to undermine 

confidence in his guilty plea, and thus he has shown that there is a reasonable 

probability that he would not have entered a guilty plea but for the erroneous advice 

he received. 

II. Factors under Lee and Romero

{¶ 42} As the majority has already described, there are circumstances that 

are particularly important to consider when determining whether a noncitizen 

defendant has demonstrated prejudice resulting from counsel’s erroneous advice 

about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The factors that should be 

considered among the totality of the circumstances are the defendant’s ties to the 

United States, the importance that the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, 

judicial advisement of immigration consequences, and the consequences of going 

to trial. Romero at ¶ 29-33; see also Lee, ___ U.S. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1965-1969, 

198 L.Ed.2d 476. The totality of these factors weighs strongly in Bozso’s favor. 

A. Connections to the United States 

{¶ 43} The majority aptly notes the strong ties that Bozso has with the 

United States. He was admitted to the United States as a refugee from Romania in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 18 

1986 when he was 21 years old, and he has lived in the United States almost all of 

his adult life. He has many ties to the United States that he lacks in Romania, 

including his partner of 27 years, his five children, and friends. I have no quarrel 

with the majority regarding this first factor, but I disagree that it is the only factor 

that weighs in Bozso’s favor. 

B. The importance placed on avoiding deportation 

{¶ 44} When a noncitizen defendant claims that he would not have entered 

a guilty plea but for the erroneous deportation information that he received, that 

claim must be backed up by more than a bald, post hoc assertion. See Lee at ___, 

137 S.Ct. at 1967. But a defendant cannot be expected to make a record of the fact 

that he has been misinformed about a crucial issue at the time he is operating under 

that misinformation. Thus, Bozso’s post hoc claim does not necessarily need to be 

substantiated with direct, airtight evidence that was placed on the record 

contemporaneously with his plea proceeding, which in and of itself proves that the 

erroneous deportation information was the determinative factor in his plea. Instead, 

it must be possible for Bozso to make a showing of prejudice based on 

circumstantial contemporaneous evidence that tends to support the conclusion that 

he placed special importance on deportation-relief eligibility when deciding 

whether to plead guilty. See Lee at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1965-1966, discussing Hill, 

474 U.S. at 60, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203. 

{¶ 45} In support of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Bozso presented 

evidence that was contemporaneous with his 2016 criminal proceedings and that 

demonstrated that his chances of relief from deportation were of utmost concern. 

On September 21, 2016, the morning of what was intended to be the final pretrial 

for Bozso’s case, his defense counsel e-mailed the immigration attorney with whom 

Bozso had consulted. That e-mail read, in part: 
January Term, 2020 

19 

I referred this cold case rape non-citizen defendant to you for your 

opinion as to what I could plead him to and keep him in the country. 

I know you met with him and we have a final pretrial today and I 

thought I would get your opinion but have heard nothing. * * * Can 

you please call me on my cell or text me or email me ASAP. 

{¶ 46} The immigration attorney responded that the offenses would 

definitely cause Bozso to be placed in deportation proceedings. But the 

immigration attorney’s conclusion, albeit “very preliminary,” was that “the client 

would have some relief available to him. Specifically, [INA Section] 212(c) relief,” 

based on the dates on which the offenses were allegedly committed. The attorney 

cautioned that relief from deportation was not guaranteed under INA Section 212(c) 

and instead was at the discretion of the court. The immigration attorney’s e-mail 

concludes by stating, “I will supply a more comprehensive advisement for you 

shortly.” But he never provided the promised comprehensive advisement to 

Bozso’s defense attorney. 

{¶ 47} The majority indicates that the foregoing e-mail exchange does not 

constitute adequate contemporaneous evidence when compared to Lee and 

emphasizes that the evidence in Lee was “backed by substantial and uncontroverted 

evidence,” id., ___ U.S. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1969, 198 L.Ed.2d 476. But the object 

of Lee was not to set a standard amount of contemporaneous evidence that would 

be enough to establish a noncitizen defendant’s claim that immigration 

consequences were important to a defendant. Rather, Lee disabused us of the notion 

that a claim fails per se if the defendant has almost no chance of prevailing at the 

criminal trial and clarified that plea-withdrawal motions by noncitizen defendants 

are decided on a case-by-case basis, by looking at the totality of the circumstances 

and by focusing on the individual defendant’s decisionmaking process. Lee at ___, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 20 

137 S.Ct. at 1966. Even so, the contemporaneous evidence in Bozso’s case is in 

fact stronger than the evidence in Lee.

{¶ 48} Although there was plenty of ad hoc testimony supporting Lee’s 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea, only one piece of evidence was actually created 

contemporaneously with the criminal proceeding leading up to Lee’s convictions: 

the plea colloquy, during which Lee said he did not understand the judge’s 

explanation that there were potential deportation consequences of pleading guilty. 

See id. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1968. The fact that a defendant does not understand part 

of a plea colloquy in no way proves that the misunderstood portion was actually 

important to the defendant, let alone important enough to be the decisive factor in 

the defendant’s agreement to a plea deal. In Bozso’s case, by contrast, his 

contemporaneous evidence directly addressed the fact that the possibility of 

avoiding deportation was a key factor that Bozso considered leading up to his 

decision to agree to a plea deal. It does not seem too far a stretch to imagine that 

immigration consequences would be a pivotal factor in any noncitizen’s decision 

to plead guilty to a criminal offense, given that “[d]eportation can be the equivalent 

of banishment or exile,” Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U.S. 388, 391, 68 S.Ct. 10, 

92 L.Ed. 17 (1947). 

{¶ 49} The majority is able to dismiss Bozso’s contemporaneous evidence 

regarding the importance he placed on immigration consequences by shifting the 

focus to the uncertainty of the immigration attorney’s advice in response to Bozso’s 

concerns. And in focusing on that response, the majority indicates that Bozso could 

not possibly rely on the mere chance of “discretionary” relief from deportation as a 

reason to enter a plea deal. But if we are “asking what an individual defendant 

would have done, the possibility of even a highly improbable result may be 

pertinent to the extent it would have affected his decisionmaking.” Lee at ___, 137 

S.Ct. at 1967. It has already been established that there is a substantive difference 

between “facing possible deportation and facing certain deportation.” St. Cyr, 533 
January Term, 2020 

21 

U.S. at 325, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347. Just as the rationality of Lee’s 

decision to reject a plea agreement would not have turned solely on the slim 

likelihood of his success on the merits at trial, Lee at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1966, here 

we should not say that Bozso’s decision would have turned solely on his likelihood 

of success in an application for discretionary relief from deportation. 

{¶ 50} Further, if the advice to Bozso regarding the applicability of INA 

Section 212(c) had been correct, he would have had far more than a slim, highly 

improbable likelihood of obtaining relief from deportation. In the era when it still 

applied, relief was granted under Section 212(c) so frequently that “preserving the 

possibility of such relief would have been one of the principal benefits sought by 

defendants deciding whether to accept a plea offer or instead to proceed to trial.” 

St. Cyr at 323. 

{¶ 51} The immigration advice upon which Bozso relied has been 

repeatedly recognized as having rightfully been pivotal to a noncitizen’s decision 

to accept a plea deal. See Padilla, 559 U.S. at 368-369, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 

284. The majority is simply incorrect that a guilty plea in the face of such advice 

indicates that Bozso did not care about being deported. Given the advice Bozso 

received, as well as the fact that he asked for immigration advice in the first place, 

this second factor weighs strongly in Bozso’s favor. 

C. Judicial advisement of immigration consequences 

{¶ 52} The trial court’s advisement pursuant to R.C. 2943.031(A) does not 

weigh for or against a finding that Bozso was prejudiced by his counsel’s erroneous 

advice. In fact, the advisement is irrelevant given the specific facts of Bozso’s case. 

{¶ 53} The trial court’s verbatim recitation of R.C. 2941.031(A) would only 

have informed Bozso that “conviction of the offense to which you are pleading 

guilty * * * may have the consequences of deportation.” It is undisputed that Bozso 

was already aware that commencement of deportation proceedings against him was 

not only a possibility, but indeed a certainty. The decisive information relevant to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 22 

his plea, which is not addressed in R.C. 2943.031(A), was that Bozso had the 

possibility of obtaining relief from deportation pursuant to INA Section 212(c) once 

deportation was ordered. There was no possibility of curing counsel’s erroneous 

advice to Bozso through the trial court’s mere recitation of R.C. 2943.031. 

D. The consequences of going to trial 

{¶ 54} Although the final factor in this analysis looks to the potential 

consequences of going to trial, the majority erroneously jumps straight to the 

consequences of being convicted. The majority’s analysis glosses over the fact that 

there are potential consequences of going to trial besides conviction. It does so by 

focusing on the context of Lee, in which it was all but certain that the consequence 

of going to trial was a conviction with a full sentence. But that is not the context 

here. And the context of the particular case being reviewed is extremely important. 

Although the defendant’s decisionmaking “may not turn solely on the likelihood of 

conviction after trial,” (emphasis added) Lee, ___ U.S. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1966, 

198 L.Ed.2d 476, the likelihood of conviction or acquittal is not irrelevant. It is 

definitely to be considered, “because defendants obviously weigh their prospects at 

trial in deciding whether to accept a plea,” id. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1966. 

{¶ 55} In 2016, the state brought two sets of rape charges against Bozso just 

a few days short of the 20-year statute of limitations in the applicable prior version 

of R.C. 2901.13(A)(3). Many charges of this type in Cuyahoga County originate 

from so-called “cold cases,” in which there was an unknown perpetrator at the time 

of the offense whose DNA was eventually linked to the offense when the victim’s 

rape kit was finally tested. See State v. Dixon, 2015-Ohio-3144, 40 N.E.3d 601, 

¶ 13 (8th Dist.); State v. Jones, 2015-Ohio-2853, 35 N.E.3d 606, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), 

judgment reversed by State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167, 2016-Ohio-5105, 69 

N.E.3d 688; State v. Powell, 2016-Ohio-1220, 61 N.E.3d 789, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.). But 

that is not how Bozso’s charges originated. 
January Term, 2020 

23 

{¶ 56} In the two rape cases alleged against Bozso, the accusers, T.C. and 

R.R., immediately reported their allegations to the police in 1996. They both 

identified Bozso as the assailant, and the police had contacted Bozso in both 

instances, but the state chose not to prosecute the cases for almost two decades. It 

appears that the state finally performed DNA testing on the 1996 rape kit from R.R. 

around 2013 and on the 1996 rape kit from T.C. in 2016. The DNA tests matched 

other people and excluded Bozso as a contributor. 

{¶ 57} Soon after the charges were initiated against Bozso in 2016, he filed 

a motion to dismiss due to prejudicial preindictment delay. Nothing in the record 

indicates that the trial court ruled on his motion. He filed second and third motions 

to dismiss, again with no indication of a ruling. According to the record before this 

court, all of his motions to dismiss due to preindictment delay were still pending 

and had not received consideration by the trial court or even a hearing when Bozso 

entered his plea. 

{¶ 58} Additionally, it is not clear from the record whether the alleged 

victims even planned to participate in the prosecution 20 years after they made their 

allegations. In an interview on January 6, 2015, investigators asked R.R. if she 

wanted to pursue charges against Bozso and she responded only that she would 

consult with her husband. Nothing in the record indicates that R.R. participated 

any further in the investigation or subsequent prosecution. T.C. did provide 

information to the police during an interview on May 13, 2016, shortly before 

charges were filed. But investigators were not able to reach the witnesses she 

identified. After Bozso pleaded guilty, neither R.R. nor T.C. responded to the 

state’s request for victim-impact statements. 

{¶ 59} Given this context of the state’s prosecution of its case against 

Bozso, there was a distinct possibility that Bozso’s charges could have been 

dismissed or that he could have been acquitted had he proceeded to a jury trial. 

Was dismissal or acquittal a sure thing? Certainly not. But there were strong 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 24 

indicators that the state would have had a tough time prevailing if the charges 

against Bozso had proceeded to trial. The plea offer alone is telling. . 

{¶ 60} Bozso originally faced 18 charges that included rape, complicity, 

sexual battery, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping, and attempted abduction, 

along with a few firearm specifications. Five months after bringing the charges, 

the state offered to drop almost all of these charges in exchange for Bozso’s guilty 

plea to amended third-degree-felony counts of sexual battery and attempted 

abduction. Bozso received suspended one-year prison sentences and was ordered 

to serve two years of probation on each count. The plea offer by the state is not the 

kind of plea offer provided when the state has any confidence that it could win the 

case. It is the kind of plea offer the state provides when it is confident that it will 

lose and wants to see if it can cut its losses by making a coercively lenient offer. 

{¶ 61} Because Bozso had a realistic chance of prevailing in his case either 

at the motions stage or the trial stage, this fourth factor weighs heavily in Bozso’s 

favor. 

III. Conclusion 

{¶ 62} The record in this case substantiated Bozso’s plea-withdrawal 

averment that he “would not have pled guilty to Sexual Battery and Attempted 

Abduction had he known that relief from immigration consequences pursuant to 

INA §212(c) was wholly unavailable to him.” Of the four factors that are 

particularly important to a determination of prejudice from erroneous advice given 

to a noncitizen defendant about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, one 

is irrelevant and the other three weigh decidedly in Bozso’s favor. It would have 

been rational for Bozso to have rejected the state’s plea offer, and there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, Bozso would not have pleaded 

guilty and would have chosen to move forward in his case toward trial. 

Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. 

STEWART, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
January Term, 2020 

25 

_________________ 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Gregory Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

Daniel J. Misiewicz, for appellee. 

_________________