12 N.E.3d 1143
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Billy Balthazar, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2009 in District Court to multiple offenses after plea bargaining reduced several felonies to misdemeanors, including misdemeanor larceny (G. L. c. 266, § 30) and malicious destruction of property under $250 (G. L. c. 266, § 127).
- In 2010 he received a federal immigration notice asserting he was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) based on convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude.
- In 2012 Balthazar moved for a new trial to vacate the 2009 guilty pleas, alleging plea counsel failed to correctly advise him about deportation consequences.
- The District Court denied the motion after a nonevidentiary hearing, crediting counsel’s affidavit that counsel warned of possible immigration consequences and recommended an immigration attorney; the judge did not hold an evidentiary hearing.
- The Appeals Court concluded counsel’s advice fell below Padilla/DeJesus standards because plea counsel did not inform Balthazar that the convictions were likely to result in presumptively mandatory deportation, but found a factual dispute about prejudice requiring an evidentiary hearing.
- The court vacated the denial of the new-trial motion and remanded for further proceedings (an evidentiary hearing) to determine whether deficient advice prejudiced Balthazar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Balthazar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel provided constitutionally adequate advice about immigration consequences of pleas | Counsel sufficiently warned client that immigration consequences "may" occur and advised him to consult immigration counsel; judge credited counsel | Counsel failed to advise that the specific misdemeanors were likely crimes involving moral turpitude and would lead to presumptively mandatory deportation; advice was therefore constitutionally deficient | Court: Counsel’s advice was deficient under Padilla/DeJesus because plea counsel did not inform defendant that convictions were likely to mandate removal; first-prong satisfied |
| Whether defendant suffered prejudice from deficient advice (Saferian test) | No clear proof defendant would have rejected plea and gone to trial; judge denied motion without evidentiary hearing | Defendant asserted meritorious defenses, Commonwealth had negotiated plea structure to avoid deportation, defendant relied on immigration consequences and would have proceeded to trial to avoid deportation | Court: Defendant raised substantial issues on all three Saferian/Chleikh factors (defenses, likelihood of different plea, special circumstances). Prejudice unresolved; remand for evidentiary hearing |
| Whether Padilla applies retroactively | Commonwealth relied on Chaidez to argue limits; Supreme Judicial Court precedent governs | Defendant relied on Massachusetts decisions preserving Padilla’s state retroactivity | Court applied Massachusetts law (Sylvain/Clarke) and treated Padilla as applicable here |
| Whether district court erred by denying evidentiary hearing and crediting counsel’s affidavit | Judge properly credited affidavits and denied hearing | The affidavits raised material factual disputes (prejudice); better practice requires an evidentiary hearing | Court: Vacated denial and remanded for evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform noncitizen whether plea carries a risk of deportation; clear deportation consequences require correct advice)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 468 Mass. 174 (2014) (advice that defendant was merely "eligible" for deportation can be deficient where statute makes deportation presumptively mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 460 Mass. 30 (2011) (applies Saferian test to Padilla-based ineffective-assistance claims under Massachusetts law)
- Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422 (2013) (Massachusetts gives Padilla retroactive effect for certain final convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974) (state ineffective-assistance test requiring deficiency and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Chleikh, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 718 (2012) (articulates factors for proving prejudice in plea-withdrawal context)
- Commonwealth v. Almonte, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 735 (2014) (when affidavits raise substantial issues, evidentiary hearing is preferred)