Angelo Bobadilla, Appellant (petitioner) v. State of Indiana, Appellee (respondent).

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that Bobadilla received ineffective assistance when counsel marked the immigration-consequences warning as not applicable without asking about his citizenship, and that Bobadilla was prejudiced because his circumstances supported a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial. The court adopted a subjective, defendant-specific prejudice inquiry for immigration-related plea claims and disapproved contrary aspects of prior state precedent. Justice Massa, dissenting, would have affirmed because the record did not establish deficient performance or that Bobadilla would have gone to trial.