OPINION

T1 Petitioner Nerim Jelashovie appeals the decision rejecting his claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective when he gave him incorrect advice regarding the deportation risks of his guilty pleas. Specifically, Jelashovie contends that his trial counsel did not provide adequate warnings as mandated by Padilla v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). We affirm.

BACKGROUND 1

2 In 2003, Jelashovie was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault. Based on the evidence likely to be introduced at trial, defense counsel determined that Je-lashovie was at substantial risk of being convicted. Defense counsel also understood that such a conviction would make Jelashovie, who is not a United States citizen, legally deport-able. Defense counsel set about to negotiate a plea agreement. Counsel sought probation for Jelashovie, believing it to be a less risky option for a defendant at risk of being deported.

13 Defense counsel advised Jelashovie that a guilty plea could make him deporta-ble but that Jelashovie could possibly avoid deportation if he was sentenced to probation and successfully completed the probationary term. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend probation at Je-lashovie's sentencing hearing. Jelashovie accepted the plea offer and pled guilty to reduced charges of forcible sexual abuse. Jelashovie understood that entering a guilty plea was not a guaranty that he would receive probation and avoid prison. And despite the prosecutor's recommendation that Jelashovie receive probation, the sentencing judge sentenced Jelashovie to two concurrent sentences of one to fifteen years in prison.

T4 Six years later, Jelashovie filed a petition seeking relief under the Post-Convietion Remedies Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-9-101 to -405 (2008 & Supp. 2011). Jelashovie alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective because he did not properly advise Jelashovie of the deportation risks of pleading guilty. The postconviction court heard testimony from Jelashovie, Jelashovie's trial counsel, and the trial prosecutor. Defense counsel explained that he had investigated Jelashovie's options and found the one that *16 he believed offered the best chance of allowing Jelashovie to avoid deportation. The court found defense counsel's testimony-that he warned Jelashovie of the deportation risks and advised him that pleading to the lesser charges was his least risky option-to be more credible than Jelashovie's testimony that he was wholly uninformed and unaware of the risks. As a result, the court ruled that defense counsel did not give incorrect advice to Jelashovie and, thus, was not ineffective in representing him. Jelashovie appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

$5 Jelashovie contends that the post-conviction court erred when it determined that defense counsel adequately advised him of the deportation risks in choosing whether to accept the plea deal. "On appeal from a ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief, we review the post-conviction court's legal conclusions for correctness and its factual findings for clear error." Tillman v. State, 2005 UT 56, ¶ 14, 128 P.3d 1123.

ANALYSIS

16 To review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we use the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). First, Jelashovie bears the burden of establishing that counsel's performance fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness." Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Second, Jelashovie must show prejudice, i.e., that but for the deficient performance, the outcome would have been different. See id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. We begin our analysis with "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

T7 Courts have toiled for many years over what constitutes an "objective standard of reasonableness" in resolving ineffective assistance of counsel claims. In Padilla v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), the United States Supreme Court addressed this objective standard in the context of defense counsel's obligation to warn a defendant of any possible deportation consequences of pleading guilty. The Court noted "how critical it is for counsel to inform her noncitizen client that he faces the risk of deportation" and that, therefore, "for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel[,] ... counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation." Id. at 1486.

18 The State contends that Padilla is inapplicable to this case because it was not issued until after the denial of Jelashovie's petition for postconviction relief We need not resolve this question, however, because regardless of Padilla's applicability to this case, we are satisfied that the postconviction court did not err when it determined that defense counsel gave Jelashovie sufficient warning regarding the possible immigration consequences of his plea.

19 Padilla requires "that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation." Id. The postconviction court considered Jelashovie's testimony that he believed that pleading guilty would absolutely protect him from deportation. It also considered defense counsel's testimony that he weighed the options, researched the risk of deportation associated with each, and then advised Jelashovie that a guilty plea to the lesser charges would be the least risky of the options available, albeit not offering a non-deportation guaranty. The postconviction court found defense counsel's testimony more credible because it was more consistent with defense counsel's statements at the sentencing hearing. It also found that Jelashovie lacked eredibility because of his inconsistent testimony about the victim's consent and about his conversations with his counsel regarding deportation risks. Accordingly, the postconviction court found that defense counsel informed Jelashovie that if he was convicted at trial, he would assuredly be deported, but that a successful probation after pleading to lesser charges would help Jela-shovie maximize his chances of avoiding such a fate.

1 10 Jelashovie does not directly challenge each of these findings, but he argues that defense counsel's inexperience and resulting naivete suggest that he did not properly inform Jelashoviec of the possible deportation *17 risks of his plea 2 The postconviction court was satisfied, however, that defense counsel adequately informed Jelashovie of the risks. The court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See Tillman v. State, 2005 UT 56, ¶ 14, 128 P.3d 1123. And we note that Padilla requires only that the risks be expressed-not that they be expressed in any particular detail or by an attorney with any particular expertise. See Padilla, 130 S.Ct. at 1486.

CONCLUSION

111 Given the post-conviction court's findings, we hold that defense counsel's performance did not fall below "an objective standard of reasonableness," see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), even if Padilla applies, because defense counsel warned Je-lashovie of the potential immigration consequences of his plea. The postconviction court's ruling is affirmed.

[ 12 WE CONCUR: CAROLYN B. McHUGH, Presiding Judge and JAMES Z. DAVIS, Judge.