Law360 (May 26, 2026, 8:22 PM EDT) -- An Ohio state appeals court on Tuesday ruled that an Uzbekistan national should be given a second shot at withdrawing his plea agreement after he claims his attorney did not properly explain the potential immigration consequences of his no-contest plea.

The three-judge panel revived Bakhodir Toshniyazov's motion claiming he was given ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations because he was not properly told that he could face removal from the United States because of his vehicular homicide and assault convictions.

"Trial courts 'have no discretion to apply an improper analysis or process in deciding an issue even where they may have discretion in the ultimate decision on the merits,'" Judge Robert A. Hendrickson said in the opinion for the Twelfth Appellate District. "As the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea was unsupported by a sound reasoning process, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained."

Toshniyazov was indicted in November 2024 by a grand jury in Fayette County after prosecutors allege his reckless driving caused an accident that killed one person and seriously injured five others. Prosecutors alleged that Toshniyazov had been driving his car at times in excess of 150 miles per hour on the interstate prior to the wreck, the opinion said.

Toshniyazov is native of Uzbekistan and has been a permanent resident in the United States since 2019 and has family in Ohio. Toshniyazov, who only speaks Uzbek, retained an attorney and required a family member and court interpreters to translate conversations with his counsel, the opinion said.

The appeals panel said that Toshniyazov and his attorney met multiple times, but specifically prior to a final pretrial hearing, the two met for 45 minutes to an hour. An interpreter was present for the meeting, and at the subsequent hearing, Toshniyazov pled no-contest to the vehicular manslaughter and assault charges, the opinion said.

A trial court, via an interpreter, informed Toshniyazov that the plea could have potential immigration consequences and asked whether his attorney had explained his rights to him. Toshniyazov told the court that his attorney had explained the plea deal and that his attorney had done everything Toshniyazov had instructed throughout the plea negotiation, the opinion said.

Toshniyazov did not ask any immigration-specific questions, and the court accepted his no-contest agreement and ultimately gave Toshniyazov 12.5 years in prison. Toshniyazov filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea claiming he was not aware of the immigration consequences, and the state sought to strike the motion, the opinion said.

The trial court accepted the government's motion and struck Toshniyazov's motion attempting to withdraw his plea agreement. The court found that because he was represented by counsel, he could not file a pro se motion, because he was not entitled to "hybrid" representation, the opinion said.

Toshniyazov retained new counsel, and the attorney then filed a new motion seeking to back out of the plea agreement citing trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. The motion claimed that trial counsel failed to explain that the alleged crimes were "crimes of moral turpitude and/or aggravated felonies" that required deportation from the country, the opinion said.

A hearing was held on the motion, and Toshniyazov's trial attorney was called to testify about what he discussed with his client during the meeting. The attorney said he told Toshniyazov he would be eligible for deportation under the plea agreement but also told Toshniyazov that he was not an immigration attorney, the opinion said.

Toshniyazov's new attorney argued that, under U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Strickland v. Washington , the court should find Toshniyazov was given ineffective assistance of counsel. The state disagreed and claimed that Ohio Supreme Court precedent was controlling in the case, and that the so-called Strickland test did not apply, the opinion said.

The trial court ruled that Ohio Supreme Court precedent should apply and, after applying the court's test to Toshniyazov's case, denied his motion to withdraw his plea. Toshniyazov appealed, claiming the court applied the incorrect test to his case, the opinion said.

The Ohio state appeals court ruled that Strickland does apply, and that the trial court is required to use the two-pronged test to determine ineffective assistance of counsel. The appeals court sent the motion back to the trial court to apply the correct test, the opinion said.

A spokesperson for the Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney or an attorney representing Toshniyazov did not respond to a request for comment.

Judges Robert A. Hendrickson, Mike Powell and Melena S. Siebert sat for the Ohio Court of Appeals, Twelfth District.

The government is represented by Jess C. Weade of the Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney.

Toshniyazov is represented by Firooz T. Namei and Patrick D. Tilden of Namei & Dalence LLC.

The case is State of Ohio v. Bakhodir Toshniyazov, case number CA2025-08-022, in the Ohio Court of Appeals, Twelfth District.

--Editing by Dave Trumbore.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.