Alcena v. Commissioner of Correction
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 491
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Jameson Alcena pleaded guilty on October 30, 2008 to two counts of violating a protective order (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-223) and received a three-year sentence, suspended after five months, plus three years probation.
- Alcena did not appeal the criminal conviction.
- On November 30, 2009, an immigration judge found Alcena (a Haitian national) removable based on that conviction; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
- Alcena filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Jan. 20, 2011) alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel Anthony Basilica for failing to advise him about deportation consequences of his guilty plea.
- The habeas court held a hearing, found no deficient performance or prejudice, denied relief, and certified the appeal.
- On appeal, Alcena relied on Padilla v. Kentucky; the respondent argued Padilla is not retroactive under Chaidez and that, under Connecticut law, immigration consequences were collateral and not constitutionally required advice pre-Padilla.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered constitutionally deficient assistance by failing to advise about deportation risk of a guilty plea | Basilica failed to advise Alcena that the protective-order convictions could lead to deportation; this omission is deficient under Padilla | Padilla announced a new rule not retroactive to convictions final before Padilla; under pre-Padilla Connecticut law immigration consequences were collateral, so no constitutional duty to advise | Padilla is not retroactive; under applicable pre-Padilla law counsel’s failure was not constitutionally deficient; claim fails |
| Whether Alcena showed prejudice from counsel’s alleged deficiency (i.e., would have gone to trial) | But for counsel’s failure to advise, Alcena would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on trial | Without Padilla’s prospective rule, Alcena cannot satisfy Hill/Strickland prejudice standard for pre-Padilla convictions | No prejudice shown under governing law; habeas relief properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client whether plea carries a risk of deportation)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule that does not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland applied to guilty pleas; prejudice requires reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
- Saksena v. Commissioner of Correction, 145 Conn. App. 152 (2013) (Connecticut appellate decision recognizing Padilla’s rule is not retroactive and treating immigration consequences as collateral under pre-Padilla state law)