199 Conn.App. 518
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Petitioner Piotr Budziszewski, a Polish national and lawful permanent resident, was arrested in 2011 for selling Roxicodone and pled guilty on January 24, 2012 to possession with intent to sell under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-277(a).
- Plea negotiations produced a recommended five-year sentence, execution suspended after no more than one year; the court ultimately sentenced him to five years, execution suspended after 90 days; he served 45 days and was then detained by federal authorities for removal.
- Federal authorities determined his conviction qualified as an "aggravated felony" under federal law (illicit trafficking in a controlled substance), and a final order of deportation was entered; petitioner exhausted appeals.
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky for failure to advise him properly of immigration consequences; the first habeas court granted relief, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and remanded for findings about what counsel actually told him.
- On remand the habeas court found counsel (Gerald Klein) credibly testified that petitioner’s primary concern was minimizing jail time (not deportation), discredited petitioner’s claim he would have rejected the plea if warned of deportation, and denied the petition; petitioner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Budziszewski's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel violated Padilla by failing to advise of deportation risk | Klein failed to advise of deportation consequences; had petitioner known, he would not have pled | Klein credibly advised and petitioner was focused on avoiding jail time, not deportation | Court did not reach deficiency in detail; resolved on prejudice—petitioner failed to show prejudice |
| Whether petitioner proved prejudice (would have rejected plea and gone to trial) | He had strong ties to U.S., no meaningful ties in Poland, and post-plea efforts (motions, habeas, $60k spent) show he sought to avoid deportation | Contemporaneous evidence (counsel and mother testimony) shows petitioner prioritized avoiding significant incarceration; rejecting plea would have been irrational | Petitioner failed Strickland prejudice prong—no reasonable probability he would have rejected plea |
| Whether post hoc conduct and expenditures suffice to prove prejudice | Post-plea actions demonstrate deportation was determinative and support credibility of his claim | Post hoc actions insufficient without contemporaneous evidence showing deportation was determinative | Lee framework applies: absent contemporaneous evidence, post hoc assertions fail; habeas court credited counsel, so no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise alien defendant of deportation consequences of a plea)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (post hoc statements that defendant would have gone to trial are insufficient without contemporaneous evidence; unusual facts may show prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice in plea context requires showing defendant would have gone to trial)
- Gousse v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2003) (Connecticut conviction under § 21a-277(a) constituted "illicit trafficking" and an aggravated felony for immigration purposes)
- Budziszewski v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 504 (2016) (Conn. Supreme Court reversed initial habeas grant and remanded for factual findings about counsel's advice per Padilla)