If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED February 10, 2022 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 347331 Van Buren Circuit Court JOSE DANIEL ALONSO, LC No. 2017-020932-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and STEPHENS and REDFORD, JJ. STEPHENS, J. (concurring). I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea conviction of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), MCL 750.84, on the basis of ineffective assistance from trial counsel. I believe counsel’s performance was deficient. But, I would affirm under the prejudice prong. The United States and Michigan Constitutions, US Const Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20, guarantee criminal defendants “the right to the effective assistance of counsel,” People v Shaw, 315 Mich App 668, 672; 892 NW2d 15 (2016). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show that: (1) trial counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. People v Taylor, 275 Mich App 177, 186; 737 NW2d 790 (2007). Trial counsel’s performance is deficient if it falls below an objective standard of professional reasonableness. People v Jordan, 275 Mich App 659, 667; 739 NW2d 706 (2007). “[A] defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel in the plea-bargaining process.” People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557, 591-592; 852 NW2d 587 (2014), citing Lafler v Cooper, 566 US 156, 162; 132 S Ct 1376; 182 L Ed 2d 398 (2012). An ineffective-assistance claim may be premised on trial counsel’s failure to properly inform the defendant of the consequences of accepting or rejecting a plea offer. Hill v Lockhart, 474 US 52, 57-58; 106 S Ct 366; 88 L Ed 2d 203 (1985). Relevant here, a defense lawyer must properly advise a defendant regarding “whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.” Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, 374; 130 S Ct 1473; 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010). -1- The majority concludes that, under Padilla, trial counsel’s performance was not deficient. The majority reasons that because determining whether AWIGBH will result in mandatory deportation is not straightforward and clear, trial counsel only had to advise defendant there may be adverse immigration consequences, which he did. I respectfully disagree. I believe it is “truly clear” that a conviction for AWIGBH would result in mandatory deportation and, therefore, trial counsel had to so advise defendant. I also believe trial counsel was obligated to consult with an immigration attorney in this instance. But because the trial court made the fact-finding to which deference is given that defendant had an immigration attorney, I conclude that failure of trial counsel to himself consult an immigration attorney, and properly advise defendant of the near- certainty of deportation, did not ultimately prejudice defendant. There is no doubt “[i]mmigration law can be complex,” considering “it …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals