Umesh Kaushal v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Jul 18 2017, 9:13 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
H. Samuel Ansell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Umesh Kaushal, July 18, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1612-CR-2862
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sheila Carlisle,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G03-1508-F4-28287
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 1 of 18
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Umesh Kaushal (Kaushal), appeals the trial court’s
denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to child molesting, a Level 4
felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Kaushal raises two issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as the
following issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying
Kaushal’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] Kaushal, a citizen of India, has lived in the United States for nearly a decade
and has a Green Card. On August 11, 2015, the State filed an Information,
charging Kaushal with child molesting as a Level 4 felony. The State alleged
that Kaushal had fondled his thirteen-year-old stepdaughter’s breast. Shortly
after his arrest, Kaushal posted bond and retained an attorney. Kaushal, who
owns and operates several convenience stores in Indianapolis, Marion County,
Indiana, made it clear to his attorney that his priority was to avoid any amount
of incarceration so that he could continue to run his businesses and care for his
mother. Given Kaushal’s insistence against imprisonment, along with his
professional opinion that Kaushal was not likely to succeed at trial, Kaushal’s
attorney focused on negotiating a deal with the State.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 2 of 18
[5] On May 4, 2016, Kaushal entered into a plea agreement with the State,
pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to the child molesting offense. The
agreement provided that Kaushal would receive a four-year sentence, with a
one-year cap on executed time and with placement for the executed time to be
determined by the trial court. However, after conferring with his attorney and
realizing that he could be confined for a portion of his sentence, Kaushal
withdrew from the plea agreement.
[6] On June 29, 2016, Kaushal entered into another plea agreement with the State,
pursuant to which he again agreed to plead guilty to the offense of child
molesting as a Level 4 felony. In exchange, Kaushal would receive a four-year
suspended sentence, of which three years would be served on probation with a
condition of home detention and one year on non-reporting probation. On
June 30, 2016, the trial court conducted a hearing on Kaushal’s guilty plea.
The trial court advised Kaushal of the implications of pleading guilty, including
his obligation to comply with the Sex and Violent Offender Registry; his waiver
of his right to appeal his conviction and/or sentence; and his waiver of certain
constitutional rights, such as the right to a trial by jury and the right to confront
and cross-examine witnesses. These warnings were also included in the written
plea agreement, and Kaushal initialed next to each one to affirm his
understanding. Also, among the written warnings was an advisement that, as a
non-citizen, Kaushal could face deportation, denial of re-entry, prohibition of
citizenship, or loss of immigration benefits as a result of the conviction. After
questioning Kaushal, the trial court found that his guilty plea was made
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 3 of 18
knowingly and voluntarily, and Kaushal agreed that there was a factual basis to
support his conviction and that he was guilty of committing the charged
offense. Accordingly, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and entered a
judgment of conviction for child molesting as a Level 4 felony.
[7] According to Kaushal, on July 1, 2016, he met with an attorney who focuses on
immigration matters and learned that, as a result of his conviction for child
molesting, he was likely to be immediately “picked up” by immigration
officials. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 30). Thus, on July 21, 2016, Kaushal filed a Verified
Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. Kaushal argued that “[o]utside of a vague
advisement that the conviction may have immigration consequences, [he] was
not advised of potential immigration consequences and would not have pled
guilty to the charged crime had he known it would subject him to automatic
detention, revocation of his permanent resident status, and certain
deportation.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 16). Kaushal further stated that he
pled guilty “in order to avoid prison without having knowledge that his ability
to legally reside in the United States would end. Kaushal owns several
businesses and considers the United States to be his home. Although he has
[pled] guilty, Kaushal maintains his innocence and wishes to proceed to trial.”
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 16). Kaushal added that withdrawing the plea
would not prejudice the State because the case could still proceed to trial, and
he insisted that withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 4 of 18
[8] On August 5, 2016, and September 9, 2016, the trial court held hearings on
Kaushal’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 1 Kaushal testified that his
attorney never discussed the immigration consequences in urging Kaushal to
plead guilty. Yet, in response to another question about conversations with his
attorney regarding his Green Card, Kaushal also stated, “I think I’m not going
to be ever U.S. citizen, or I’m never going to be deported after, like—in that
quick until I—I just find immigration stuff.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 28). Kaushal
clarified that, while he understood there would be “a hard road after” pleading
guilty, he did not realize “that it’s going to be that hard—[that he would get]
deported that quick.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 29). On the other hand, Kaushal’s
attorney testified that he went through each paragraph of the plea agreement
with Kaushal, including the paragraph regarding possible immigration
consequences, and Kaushal did not have any questions as to what he was
signing. Moreover, Kaushal’s attorney testified that Kaushal had informed him
that he was contemporaneously conferring with immigration attorneys.
Although Kaushal’s attorney stated that he does not practice immigration law,
he specifically told Kaushal that his Green Card would not be renewed prior to
Kaushal signing the plea agreement.
[9] On November 7, 2016, the trial court issued an Order Denying Verified Motion
to Withdraw Guilty Plea. The trial court determined that even though the State
1
By this time, Kaushal had retained new representation. In this decision, references to Kaushal’s attorney
denotes his former attorney, who negotiated the plea agreement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 5 of 18
had conceded that Kaushal’s attorney ineffectively advised Kaushal on the
immigration consequences of pleading guilty, Kaushal failed to establish that he
was prejudiced by his attorney’s advice. On December 2, 2016, Kaushal filed a
motion to correct error, which the trial court denied on December 15, 2016.
[10] On December 21, 2016, Kaushal filed his Notice of Appeal. On January 6,
2017, Kaushal filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending appeal. Kaushal
argued that “[u]pon the imposition of a sentence, [he] will be subject to
mandatory detention and removal by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
which, for all practical purposes, will result in the complete denial of his right to
pursue the appellate review, afforded to him by statute, of the trial court’s
denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing.”
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 33). This, according to Kaushal, “would cause
irreparable harm.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 33). On January 10, 2017, the
trial court granted Kaushal’s motion to stay and vacated the sentencing hearing
pending appellate review. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review
[11] Indiana Code section 35-35-1-4(b) governs the withdrawal of guilty pleas where
such motions are filed after the plea has been entered but prior to sentencing.
This statute provides that, upon a written and verified motion to withdraw a
guilty plea, the trial court may allow withdrawal “for any fair and just reason
unless the state has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the
defendant’s plea.” I.C. § 35-35-1-4(b). This decision by the trial court is subject
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 6 of 18
to review only for an abuse of discretion. I.C. § 35-35-1-4(b). “However, the
court shall allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty, or guilty but
mentally ill at the time of the crime, whenever the defendant proves that
withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” I.C. § 35-
35-1-4(b). In other words, the trial court is required to grant a motion to
withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing
“only if the defendant proves that withdrawal of the plea ‘is
necessary to correct a manifest injustice.’ The court must deny a
motion to withdraw a guilty plea if the withdrawal would result
in substantial prejudice to the State. Except under these polar
circumstances, disposition of the petition is at the discretion of
the trial court.”
Craig v. State, 883 N.E.2d 218, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Weatherford v.
State, 697 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. 1998)).
[12] “A trial court’s ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea ‘arrives in this
[c]ourt with a presumption in favor of the ruling.’” Brightman v. State, 758
N.E.2d 41, 44 (Ind. 2001) (quoting Coomer v. State, 652 N.E.2d 60, 62 (Ind.
1995)). “We will not disturb the court’s ruling where it was based on
conflicting evidence.” McGraw v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1218, 1220 (Ind. Ct. App.
2010), trans. denied. Rather, unless the trial court has abused its discretion in
denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we will uphold its decision. Centers
v. State, 501 N.E.2d 415, 419 (Ind. 1986). Kaushal bears the burden of
establishing the grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. I.C. §
35-35-1-4(e).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 7 of 18
II. Manifest Injustice
[13] “Manifest injustice” is “necessarily [an] imprecise standard[], and an appellant
seeking to overturn a trial court’s decision [faces] a high hurdle under the
current statute and its predecessors.” Craig 883 N.E.2d at 221 (quoting
Weatherford, 697 N.E.2d at 34). Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-35-1-4(c),
withdrawal of a plea is required to correct a manifest injustice, in pertinent part,
when a convicted person has been denied the effective assistance of counsel or
when a plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. “Unless the defendant
proves a manifest injustice by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial court
has discretion to grant or deny the request.” Bland v. State, 708 N.E.2d 880, 882
(Ind. Ct. App. 1999). On appeal, Kaushal argues that his plea must be
withdrawn because his plea was not knowing and voluntary and because he
was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
A. Knowing, Voluntary, and Intelligent Plea
[14] Kaushal contends that he “presented uncontroverted evidence that he had
grossly misapprehended the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The
disparity between what he expected when he pled guilty and what he would
receive as an immigration consequence is such that his decision to plead guilty
was not made knowingly and intelligently.” (Appellant’s Br. pp. 14-15). 2
2
We reject the State’s assertion that Kaushal is precluded from raising the claim that he did not knowingly
or intelligently plead guilty because such a claim must be pursued through a petition for post-conviction
relief. A motion to withdraw a plea made after a sentence has been imposed must be treated as a petition for
post-conviction relief. I.C. § 35-35-1-4(c). Here, however, Kaushal filed his motion to withdraw after
acceptance of the plea but prior to sentencing. Thus, his direct appeal is the appropriate forum to challenge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 8 of 18
Because “[a] guilty plea constitutes a waiver of constitutional rights,” the trial
court must “evaluate the validity of every plea before accepting it.” Davis v.
State, 675 N.E.2d 1097, 1102 (Ind. 1996). In order for a guilty plea to be valid,
“the defendant’s decision to plead guilty must be knowing, voluntary[,] and
intelligent.” Id. (citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-44 (1969)).
Indiana law provides that a trial court cannot accept a guilty plea “without first
determining that the defendant understands the nature of the charges against
him and that pleading guilty waives a number of valuable constitutional rights.”
Id. (citing I.C. § 35-35-1-2(a)). “[C]oncerns about injustice carry greater weight
when accompanied by credible evidence of involuntariness, or when the
circumstances of the plea reveal that the rights of the accused were violated.”
Coomer, 652 N.E.2d at 62.
[15] Prior to accepting Kaushal’s guilty plea, the trial court examined Kaushal in
accordance with Indiana Code section 35-35-1-2(a). Specifically, in response to
questions posed by the trial court, Kaushal testified that he was thirty-four years
old and had completed “a little bit of college.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 5). The trial
court asked Kaushal whether he had read the entire plea agreement; whether he
had personally initialed the agreement next to certain paragraphs in the
agreement; and whether he understood everything in the plea agreement.
Kaushal answered “Yes, sir” to each of these questions. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 5). The
the voluntariness of his guilty plea. See Brightman, 758 N.E.2d at 44. As to the State’s alternative argument,
to the extent that Kaushal has not developed a cogent argument with adequate citations to authority as
required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), we elect to address the merits of Kaushal’s argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 9 of 18
trial court further questioned Kaushal as to whether he understood that he
would be admitting the allegations contained in the charging Information as
true and—after reviewing the penalty range for a Level 4 felony, the sentencing
terms of the plea agreement, the requirement that he register as a sex offender,
and the special conditions for probation—asked Kaushal whether he
understood the punishment. Again, Kaushal answered affirmatively. Kaushal
also stated that he understood that he would be waiving his right to a public and
speedy trial by jury; his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; his right
to utilize the compulsory process for obtaining witnesses; his right to require the
State to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt; his rights to testify or
remain silent at trial; and his right to appeal the conviction. Kaushal agreed
that he “had enough time to talk with [his] attorney . . . about the facts of the
case and the plea agreement itself” and that he had “told [his attorney]
everything that [he knew] about the case.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 10). Kaushal stated
that he was satisfied with the legal services that his attorney had provided.
Finally, Kaushal stated that he was not pleading guilty because of force, threat,
or promise by another; that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
and that he did not suffer from any mental health issues. See Coomer, 652
N.E.2d at 62 (discussing the trial court’s duty to examine a defendant prior to
accepting the defendant’s guilty plea to confirm that the defendant is acting
freely and knowingly).
[16] Although the trial court did not specifically question Kaushal about his
understanding of potential immigration consequences, he did ensure that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 10 of 18
Kaushal read and understood the contents of the plea agreement in their
entirety. One paragraph of the plea agreement, which Kaushal initialed,
stipulated: “Defendant affirms that if he/she is not a citizen of the United
States, he/she wishes to enter a guilty plea even if a conviction in this case
results in deportation, denial of re-entry, prohibition of citizenship, or loss of
any future immigration benefit(s).” (Appellant’s Supp. App. Vol. II, p. 15).
Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Kaushal knowingly, voluntarily,
and intelligently entered a guilty plea and, therefore, has failed to prove a
manifest injustice on this basis.
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
[17] Kaushal next contends that withdrawal of his guilty plea is necessary to correct
a manifest injustice because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to advise him of the specific immigration consequences that he would
incur by pleading guilty to a felony charge of child molestation. To prevail on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish that his
counsel’s performance was deficient and that such deficient performance
resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Brightman, 758 N.E.2d at 46. Deficient
performance is defined as that which “falls below an objective standard of
reasonableness.” Id. (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
“Prejudice exists when a defendant shows ‘there is a reasonable probability
[i.e., probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome] that, but
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have
been different.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 11 of 18
Our court presumes that counsel rendered competent assistance, “and whether
a lawyer performed reasonably under the circumstances is determined by
examining the whole of the lawyer's work on a case.” Id. (citing Strickland, 466
U.S. at 690). The defendant is required to “offer strong and convincing
evidence to overcome the presumption that counsel prepared and executed an
effective defense.” Id. (citing Burris v. State, 558 N.E.2d 1067, 10720 (Ind.
1990), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 922 (1995)).
[18] Kaushal argues that
[t]he evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel by [his trial
attorney] is overwhelming. He failed to correctly advise Kaushal
of the immigration consequences of his plea, which by [federal]
statute are presumptive detention and deportation. [The
attorney’s] immigration advice that Kaushal’s [G]reen [C]ard
would not be renewed, as well as the agreed sentence of three
years of home detention while on probation, caused Kaushal to
grossly mistake the severity and immediacy of the immigration
consequences he would face.
(Appellant’s Br. p. 16). Kaushal insists that he “would not have waived [his]
trial rights had he not been grossly misinformed and misled by ineffective
counsel as to the severe immigration consequences of his guilty plea.”
(Appellant’s Br. p. 23). On the other hand, the State argues that Kaushal was
aware of the immigration consequences prior to pleading guilty and now simply
regrets his decision.
[19] In Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496, 500 (Ind. 2001), our supreme court stated
that “the failure to advise of the consequence of deportation can, under some
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 12 of 18
circumstances, constitute deficient performance [of counsel].” Whether such a
failure to advise does actually constitute deficient performance “in a given case
is fact sensitive and turns on a number of factors. These presumably include the
knowledge of the lawyer of the client’s status as an alien, the client’s familiarity
with the consequences of conviction, the severity of criminal penal
consequences, and the likely subsequent effects of deportation.” Id. Recently,
our court stated:
Defense attorneys have an obligation to advise their clients
regarding the possible penal consequences of standing trial. One
of the most important roles a defense attorney plays is to help
clients navigate this complex decision-making process. It is
incumbent upon the attorney to describe the best and worst case
scenarios as to penal consequences the client would face whether
the client pleads guilty, with or without a plea agreement, or
stands trial.
Black v. State, 54 N.E.3d 414, 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Likewise,
our court “caution[ed]” in Carrillo v. State, 982 N.E.2d 468, 474-75 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013) (citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010)), that while “it
would be proper for the judiciary to play a part in ensuring that noncitizen
defendants are adequately advised of the immigration consequences of guilty
pleas,” “it would still be incumbent upon the defendant’s attorney to accurately
inform the noncitizen defendant of the deportation consequences of pleading
guilty where they can be easily determined from reading the relevant
immigration statute.” However, “‘[w]hen the law is not succinct and
straightforward . . . , a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 13 of 18
noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse
immigration consequences.’” Id. at 475 (ellipsis in original) (quoting Padilla,
559 U.S. at 369).
[20] In Segura, the defendant accused his trial counsel of being ineffective for—as in
the present case—failing to advise him of the immigration consequences prior
to pleading guilty. Segura, 749 N.E.2d at 500. However, the Segura court did
not address the deficiency of counsel’s performance because it found that, even
if counsel’s performance was deficient, the defendant had failed to prove that he
had been prejudiced. Id. The Segura court set the standard for establishing
prejudice in cases concerning counsel’s errors in advice as to penal
consequences:
[A] petitioner must establish, by objective facts, circumstances
that support the conclusion that counsel’s errors in advice as to
penal consequences were material to the decision to plead.
Merely alleging that the petitioner would not have pleaded is
insufficient. Rather, specific facts, in addition to the petitioner’s
conclusory allegation, must establish an objective reasonable
probability that competent representation would have caused the
petitioner not to enter a plea.
Id. at 507.
[21] In Gulzar v. State, 971 N.E.2d 1258, 1259-60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied,
after pleading guilty and being sentenced for felony theft, the defendant—an
immigrant from Pakistan—filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting
that he had received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Similar to the case at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 14 of 18
hand, the attorney in Gulzar did inform the defendant that the guilty plea could
affect his immigration status but did not specify that the conviction would
subject him to automatic deportation. Id. at 1260. The defendant claimed that
his counsel’s failure to explain the risk of deportation was prejudicial because
he would have otherwise rejected the plea agreement. Id. at 1261. Our court
noted that “[s]imply alleging that the [defendant] would not have pled [guilty]”
was insufficient to establish that the defendant has been prejudiced by any error
in counsel’s failure to advise the defendant of penal consequences. Id. Rather,
“specific facts, in addition to the [defendant’s] conclusory allegation, must
establish an objective reasonable probability that competent representation
would have caused the [defendant] not to enter a plea.” Id. The defendant in
Gulzar argued that deportation “would be especially difficult for him and [his
nuclear family].” Id. Notwithstanding these “special circumstances related to
his family,” our court found that “the evidence establishing his guilt” supported
a finding that, “at the end of the day, the inevitable result is conviction and the
same sentence.” Id. at 1262. Furthermore, the defendant “secure[d] a
significant benefit by reducing his liability” through the guilty plea. Id. Thus,
we found the defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his
counsel’s failure to advise him that a guilty plea would result in automatic
deportation. Id.[22] In the present case, assuming arguendo that his attorney’s failure to specifically
advise Kaushal of the immediate possibility of deportation was deficient, we
find that certain factors do favor a finding that Kaushal was prejudiced.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 15 of 18
Although Kaushal’s appellate brief is devoid of any argument regarding special
circumstances that would support a conclusion that he would not have pled
guilty absent the faulty advice of his attorney, 3 his motion to withdraw contends
that he pled “guilty in order to avoid prison without having knowledge that his
ability to legally reside in the United States would end. Kaushal owns several
businesses and considers the United States to be his home. Although he has
[pled] guilty, Kaushal maintains his innocence and wishes to proceed to trial.”
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 16). In addition, evidence elicited during the
hearing on Kaushal’s motion to withdraw indicates that Kaushal takes care of
his mother. Kaushal’s ties to this country—namely his business and his
mother—are “special circumstances” that could support a finding that Kaushal
was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to adequately advise him of the penal
consequences of his plea. See Gulzar, 971 N.E.2d at 1261. Moreover, we note
that the factual basis set forth by the State to support Kaushal’s guilty plea
simply provided that “on August 8, 2015, . . . Kaushal did perform or submit to
fondling or touching with M.S., a child under the age of [fourteen] years,
specifically [thirteen] years, with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual
desires of . . . Kaushal or M.S. All of that occurred in Marion County and is
contrary to the laws of the State of Indiana.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 13). This ‘factual
basis’ amounts more to a recitation of the elements necessary to prove the
3
Rather, Kaushal’s argument focuses on accusing his trial counsel of collecting his fee and then “urgent[ly]”
advising a reluctant Kaushal to plead guilty in order to avoid having to prepare for a trial. (Appellant’s Br. p.
20). We find Kaushal’s claims regarding the efforts of his counsel to be irrelevant to the matter of whether
Kaushal received ineffective advice as to the penal consequences of pleading guilty.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 16 of 18
offense rather than a statement of facts to prove those elements. Thus, unlike in
Gulzar, we can hardly say that there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt such
that the ultimate result would have likely been the same regardless of whether
Kaushal pled guilty or proceeded to trial.
[23] Nevertheless, Kaushal undoubtedly received a substantial benefit by pleading
guilty, as he received an entirely suspended sentence for an offense that carries a
possible term of incarceration of two to twelve years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-5.5.
Furthermore, Kaushal’s counsel testified that he informed Kaushal, prior to
pleading guilty, that Kaushal’s Green Card would not be renewed, and when he
reviewed the contents of the plea agreement with Kaushal, including the
paragraph indicating a risk of deportation, Kaushal affirmed his understanding.
Moreover, the trial court confirmed that Kaushal had read, understood, and
signed the provision of the plea agreement discussing the possibility of
deportation. See Barajas v. State, 987 N.E.2d 176, 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)
(finding that even if trial counsel had performed below prevailing professional
norms by failing to explain the potential immigration consequences of pleading
guilty, the defendant was not prejudiced because the trial court explained that
his guilty plea could possibly result in deportation). In addition, Kaushal
conceded that he was aware that he would face hurdles with respect to his
immigration status, despite his mistaken belief that he would have the time and
ability to appeal any immigration consequences with immigration officials, but
he was apparently willing to accept those risks in order to avoid spending any
amount of time incarcerated. Thus, although his attorney did not advise of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 17 of 18
specific immigration consequences, it is clear that Kaushal was advised of the
possibility that he would be deported if he pled guilty but chose to do so
regardless. Accordingly, because he has failed to establish that he was
prejudiced by his attorney’s performance, he has not proven that the withdrawal
of his guilty plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Therefore, the
trial court had discretion to deny Kaushal’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
CONCLUSION
[24] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court acted within its
discretion in denying Kaushal’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
[25] Affirmed.
[26] Najam, J. and Bradford, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1612-CR-2862 | July 18, 2017 Page 18 of 18