Ohio v. Romero

Brief of Amici Curiae Immigrant Defense Project and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellee.

Brief filed: 07/02/2018


Ohio v. Romero

Supreme Court of Ohio; Case No. 2017-0915

Prior Decision

Discretionary appeal from the Stark County Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District, Case No. 2016CA00201


A non-citizen defendant suffers prejudice when defense counsel fails to advise of potential immigration consequences, even if the court notifies defendant that he or she “may” face immigration consequences. Judicial notifications cannot cure defense counsel’s foregone negotiations for an immigration-safe plea. The statutorily mandated language in Ohio, which states that the guilty plea “may” result in deportation, does not accurately advise a defendant whose deportation is virtually certain and mandatory. Judicial notifications given without regard to a defendant’s particular circumstances must be given little weight in the prejudice analysis. The roles and responsibilities of court and counsel are legally and practically distinct. Allowing court notifications to replace advice from defense counsel contradicts Padilla v. Kentucky, which placed the burden of giving the advice regarding immigration consequences squarely on defense counsel. 


Candace C. Crouse, Pinales Stachler Young Burrell & Crouse Co. LPA, Cincinnati, OH; Ryan Muennich, Immigrant Defense Project, NY, NY

Explore keywords to find information

Featured Products