MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jan 29 2019, 9:28 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK Indiana Supreme Court purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals and Tax Court collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Johnny W. Ulmer Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Ulmer Law Office, Inc. Attorney General of Indiana Bristol, Indiana J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Javier Gonzalez, January 29, 2019 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-PC-2284 v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana, The Hon. Charles C. Wicks, Judge Trial Court Cause No. Appellee-Respondent. 20D05-1804-PC-20 Bradford, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-2284 | January 29, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] In 2003, Javier Gonzalez, who was (and is) in the United States illegally, pled guilty in Elkhart County to Class D felony cocaine possession, a conviction that was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor. In 2018, Gonzalez petitioned for post-conviction relief (“PCR”), claiming that he had received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel because she failed to inquire about his immigration status or advise him of the possibility of deportation if he pled guilty. During a hearing on Gonzalez’s PCR petition, neither he nor his trial counsel could recall if she had inquired about his immigration status. The post- conviction court denied Gonzalez’s PCR petition. Gonzalez claims that the post-conviction court erred in denying his PCR petition. Because we disagree, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] On August 25, 2003, Gonzalez pled guilty to Class D felony cocaine possession. Gonzalez did not directly appeal his conviction or sentence. Gonzalez managed to have his conviction reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor in 2012 or 2013. On April 19, 2018, Gonzalez petitioned for PCR, alleging that his trial counsel had been deficient in failing to warn him that his conviction might result in his deportation and that he would not have pled guilty had he known. An evidentiary hearing on Gonzalez’s PCR petition was held on June 15, 2018. At the hearing, his trial counsel testified that she did not recall if she had asked Gonzalez about his immigration status before he Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-2284 | January 29, 2019 Page 2 of 5 pled guilty. When asked, Gonzalez himself could not recall if his trial counsel had asked him about his immigration status or whether he was a United States citizen. On August 29, 2018, the post-conviction court denied Gonzalez’s PCR petition. Discussion and Decision [3] Our standard for reviewing the denial of a PCR petition is well-settled: In reviewing the judgment of a post-conviction court, appellate courts consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting its judgment. The post-conviction court is the sole judge of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. To ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals