Summary
The Oregon Court of Appeals reviewed a petition for post-conviction relief by a Jamaican citizen who claimed that his guilty plea was invalid because he was not informed that conviction could result in deportation and because counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court held that the trial court's failure to give the deportation warning required by ORS 135.385(2)(d) did not, by itself, violate the state or federal constitutions and was not cognizable as a statutory violation in post-conviction proceedings. The court remanded for determination of the ineffective-assistance claim, while a concurrence would also have remanded the constitutional claim.
Holdings
- The failure to advise a defendant of possible deportation before accepting a guilty plea does not violate either the Oregon or United States Constitution.
- A violation of the statutory deportation-advisement requirement, without a corresponding constitutional violation, did not provide a basis for post-conviction relief under ORS 138.530.
- An allegation that plea counsel failed to inform Lyons of the possibility of deportation was cognizable in a post-conviction proceeding.
- The ineffective-assistance claim had to be remanded because the post-conviction court had not specifically addressed it and the evidence conflicted regarding counsel's advice.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's failure to advise Lyons that his conviction could result in deportation violated the Oregon or federal constitutions and entitled him to post-conviction relief.
- Whether the statutory notice requirement in ORS 135.385(2)(d), without more, created a constitutional violation cognizable in a post-conviction proceeding.
- Whether Lyons stated a cognizable ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on counsel's alleged failure to advise him of the possibility of deportation.
- Whether the ineffective-assistance claim required remand because the post-conviction court had not resolved conflicting evidence or determined whether counsel met applicable professional standards.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (11)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969)(followed)
- Fletcher v. Cupp, 1 Or. App. 467, 463 P.2d 365 (1969), rev. den. (1970)(followed)
- Jones v. Cupp, 7 Or. App. 415, 490 P.2d 1038 (1971), rev. den. (1972)(limited)
- Gaffey v. State of Oregon, 55 Or. App. 186, 637 P.2d 634 (1981)(limited)
- Krummacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or. 867, 627 P.2d 458 (1981)(followed)
- Raisley v. Sullivan, 8 Or. App. 332, 493 P.2d 745 (1972), rev. den.(followed)
- State v. Evans, 290 Or. 707, 625 P.2d 1300 (1982)(distinguished)
- State v. Ferren, 3 Or. App. 224, 473 P.2d 165 (1970)(discussed)
- Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6, 68 S. Ct. 374, 92 L. Ed. 433 (1948)(discussed)
- Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 42 S. Ct. 492, 66 L. Ed. 938 (1921)(discussed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.