The Indiana Supreme Court reversed a post-conviction court and remanded the manner

“Life changes in the instant. The ordinary instant.” Perhaps nothing is more ordinary in Indiana’s justice system than a guilty-plea hearing, but these everyday proceedings undoubtedly alter peoples’ lives. Over three years ago, Angelo Bobadilla entered an Indiana courtroom to plead guilty to two low-level misdemeanors. But when the then-teenager exited the courtroom, he didn’t know that his guilty plea made him a deportable felon under federal immigration law.

Bobadilla’s life changed the moment he pleaded guilty to stealing less than $20 of merchandise from Walmart. Upon realizing his plea’s dire implications, a desperate Bobadilla sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel: his attorney provided deficient performance that prejudiced him. We agree.

Today we hold that counsel rendered ineffective assistance to Bobadilla. On the trial court’s standard advisement of rights form, counsel affirmatively marked as “not applicable” the warning about potential immigration consequences from a criminal conviction—without so much as asking Bobadilla’s citizenship status. This mistake prejudiced Bobadilla because the record shows a reasonable probability that, had he known his plea’s full consequences, he would have rejected that plea bargain and instead insisted on going to trial.

The attorney had 30 years experience but

What trial counsel did not know was that Bobadilla was not a United States citizen, but a “Dreamer” under the Department of Homeland Security’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Bobadilla read and signed the form, pleaded guilty, and received the promised suspended sentence—one year for A-Misdemeanor Theft and 180 days for B-Misdemeanor Marijuana Possession. By all accounts, the guilty-plea hearing went as expected—quickly and routinely. At the end, the court wished Bobadilla good luck, Bobadilla thanked the judge, and he left the courthouse.

Justice Massa dissented

The appellant presents a seductively sympathetic case at a time when the issue of illegal immigration convulses the nation—a DACA Dreamer in the country for most of his life who ends up deported for boosting a bag of boxers or briefs. As the Court notes, had Bobadilla pled to 364 days suspended (instead of 365!) he’d likely still be in Hamilton County with his family. It is thus an act of compassion that our Court performs today, giving Bobadilla a chance, however remote, of getting back in the country. But the near impossibility of that occurring makes this holding all the more questionable. His own lawyers call today’s relief “meaningless.” We alter the rules with little chance that anyone will benefit. And that should be avoided by a court of legal doctrine.

Justice Slaughter joined the dissent. (Mike Frisch)