Court Opinion

ID: 9721552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:02:15.095872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:27.171760
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I do not agree that the failure to inform a criminal defendant of the possibility of deportation as a civil collateral consequence flowing from a criminal conviction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. While I do agree that Indiana can choose to provide greater protection of individual liberty than that required by the federal Constitution and that this Court is not bound by the federal decisions referred to by the majority, there is no indication that Indiana has ever intended to make such an extension as to advisement of collateral consequences to a guilty plea.
._ The analysis within Santos v. Kolb (7th Cir.1989), 880 F.2d 941, is instructive:
"In a recent and similar ease, we held that it was not ineffective assistance of counsel for an attorney to fail to inform his client of the immigration consequences of a conviction for a drug offense. In United States v. George, 869 F.2d 333 (7th Cir. 1989), we stated:
'[Aletual knowledge of consequences which are collateral to the guilty plea is not a prerequisite to the entry of a knowing and intelligent plea. A deportation proceeding is a civil proceeding which may result from a criminal prosecution, but is not a part of or enmeshed in the criminal proceeding. It is collateral to the criminal prosecution. While the Sixth Amendment assures an accused of effective assistance of counsel in "criminal prosecutions," this assurance does not extend to collateral aspects of the prosecution.'" [Footnote and citations omitted.] ...
"There are many collateral consequences to a criminal prosecution which, if not disclosed by counsel, nonetheless do not result in an involuntary plea of guilty. Consequently, we decline to hold as a matter of law that counsel's failure to inform a client as to the immigration consequences which may result from a guilty plea, without more, is "outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance."" [Citations omitted.]
# # a a u i
The failure of petitioner's counsel to inform him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, however unfortunate it might be, simply does not deprive petitioner of the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution."
Id. at 944-945. I would conclude that the failure to inform a non-citizen of civil collateral consequences to a guilty plea, without more, cannot form the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.