Commonwealth v. Chleikh, 978 N.E.2d 96

Chleikh pled guilty on March 23, 2011 to four counts including a crime of violence with a weapon and related offenses; sentence was two-and-a-half years with 15 months to serve and the rest suspended, creating automatic deportation risk as a noncitizen with aggravated felonies.
ICE began deportation proceedings in 2011 and issued an immigration detainer after the plea.
Defendant moved to withdraw pleas and vacate convictions, arguing plea counsel was ineffective under Padilla for failing to warn about deportation consequences.
The motion was denied by the judge; the appeal followed, and the record showed the plea warnings included general immigration warnings and Chapter 278, §29D warnings.
The court applied Clarke’s prejudice framework to determine whether defendant established prejudice from counsel’s performance.
court ultimately affirmed denial of the motion to withdraw pleas and vacate convictions and for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the defendant showed prejudice from counsel’s Padilla failure	Chleikh argues prejudice existed; but the record shows no viable defense or probability of a better plea.	Chleikh contends counsel’s failure to provide a specific Padilla warning rendered the plea non-knowing.	No prejudice; denial affirmed.
Whether the defendant had any viable defense to the Commonwealth’s case	Chleikh had a substantial ground of defense that would have been pursued.	No viable defense supported by record or anticipated trial testimony.	No substantial ground of defense; relief denied.
Whether a different plea or sentence could have been negotiated to avoid deportation	Chleikh would have sought a plea with less severe immigration consequences.	A different plea or sentence could have changed deportation exposure.	No reasonable probability of a different favorable plea; relief denied.
Whether special immigration circumstances would have rationally influenced pleading	Chleikh’s ties to the U.S. would support choosing trial to avoid deportation.	There were special circumstances warranting heightened immigration concern.	No demonstrated special circumstances; relief denied.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (duty to advise on deportation when the risk is clear)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice prong requires showing of reasonable probability of trial conviction avoided)
Clarke, 460 Mass. 30 (Mass. 2011) (prejudice requires showing rational rejection of plea or substantial grounds)
Gordon, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 389 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (special immigration consequences can affect plea decisions)
Acevedo, 446 Mass. 435 (Mass. 2006) (standard for review of reconsideration of new-trial motions)
Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (Mass. 1974) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance claims in Mass.)