Budziszewski v. Commissioner of Correction, 142 A.3d 243

Background

Petitioner Piotr Budziszewski, a lawful permanent resident from Poland, pleaded guilty to a state drug offense after counsel Gerald Klein negotiated a plea to a lesser charge with a recommended sentence. Federal authorities then initiated removal proceedings based on the conviction as an aggravated felony.
Budziszewski filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance under Padilla v. Kentucky for failure to advise that the plea would mandate deportation; the habeas court granted relief and vacated the conviction.
At the habeas trial, Klein gave equivocal testimony about what immigration advice he provided; he recalled telling clients that strict enforcement could result in deportation but also that enforcement was sometimes lax. The petitioner testified he received no immigration advice and would have gone to trial if he had known of deportation consequences.
The habeas court concluded Klein failed to give the specific warning that the plea would subject the petitioner to mandatory deportation, but made few findings about the actual content of Klein’s advice and appeared to expect particular wording.
The Commissioner appealed, arguing Padilla requires advising only a heightened risk of deportation rather than a mandate. The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed Padilla’s standard and whether counsel must predict enforcement likelihood.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Budziszewski)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner)	Held
Did Padilla require counsel to advise that a guilty plea would mandatorily cause deportation when federal law is clear?	Klein failed to advise that conviction mandated deportation; petitioner's plea was induced by deficient advice.	Padilla requires only warning of a "heightened risk" of deportation, not an unequivocal mandate.	Where federal law clearly mandates deportation (e.g., aggravated felony) counsel must inform the client that deportation is the prescribed consequence.
Must counsel use specific "magic words" (e.g., "subject to mandatory deportation") to satisfy Padilla?	N/A — petitioner argued insufficient warning.	N/A — Commissioner implicitly argued less-formal warnings suffice.	No fixed wording required; courts must assess the totality of advice and whether it accurately conveyed the legal consequence in terms the client could understand.
Is counsel required to predict the likelihood or timing of federal enforcement of deportation?	N/A — petitioner argued he was not warned of deportation likelihood.	Counsel is not required to predict enforcement practices; at most warn of risk.	Counsel need not predict enforcement probability; but if counsel discusses enforcement, they must make clear that once federal authorities apprehend the client, deportation will be practically inevitable under federal law.
Did the habeas court properly apply Padilla and make adequate findings?	The habeas court granted relief based on its view counsel did not give the required warning.	The habeas court erred by misapplying Padilla and requiring specific language; record lacked adequate findings.	Reversed and remanded: habeas court failed to make findings about what advice was given and whether enforcement-related comments negated Padilla-compliant advice; petitioner bears burden to prove deficiency.

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (effective assistance requires advising noncitizen defendants of clear deportation consequences)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings as contrast for not imposing fixed-script requirements)
Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 313 Conn. 360 (2014) (standard of plenary review for legal questions on appeal)
Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 468 Mass. 174 (2014) (courts should not prescribe precise Padilla language; counsel must explain that apprehension makes deportation likely)
State v. Shata, 364 Wis. 2d 63 (2015) (discussing sufficiency of warnings that convey a strong or "heightened" chance of deportation)
Encarnacion v. State, 295 Ga. 660 (2014) (noting enforcement variability but reinforcing that clear statutory mandates require advising of consequences)
Gould v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 544 (2011) (appellate limits on resolving disputed factual findings)