Commonwealth v. Clarke
460 Mass. 30
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty in 2005 to possession with intent to distribute a class B substance, possession with intent to distribute a class D substance, and underage possession of liquor, with reductions of two school-zone counts; deportation risk arises from convictions under IIRIRA and related immigration statutes.
- In 2009 the DHS served a notice to appear, triggering removal proceedings based on alleged aggravated felony and controlled-substance convictions; defendant moved for a new trial claiming lack of knowing and voluntary plea due to not understanding the intent element, which was denied in 2010.
- On April 14, 2010, defendant filed a second motion for new trial arguing ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla for failure to inform him of immigration consequences of his plea.
- Plea colloquy and written plea forms contained deportation warnings, including a tender of plea form signed by the defendant and a judge's certification that the defendant was informed of possible deportation for noncitizens.
- The trial court denied the second motion without a written decision; the court then addressed whether Padilla applies retroactively to collateral review and whether the defendant demonstrated prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure.
- The court ultimately held Padilla is retroactive to convictions obtained after April 1, 1997 (IIRIRA effective date) but concluded defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent counsel’s alleged failure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla applies retroactively on collateral review. | Padilla is retroactive and must be applied. | Retroactivity should be limited under Teague. | Padilla retroactive on collateral review for convictions after April 1, 1997. |
| Whether defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to inform about deportation consequences. | Counsel's failure violated Padilla and prejudiced defendant. | Prejudice not shown; plea outcome unlikely different. | No reasonable probability of different outcome; prejudice not shown. |
| Whether Padilla’s standard fits the Massachusetts Saferian/Strickland framework. | Padilla adopts Strickland's framework; failures satisfy the first prong. | Standard not satisfied given record. | Padilla applied within Saferian/Strickland framework. |
| Whether the deportation warnings on docket and plea forms suffice to prove prejudice. | Warnings support prejudice analysis. | Warnings do not substitute for counsel’s duty to advise. | Warnings relevant but insufficient to prove prejudice. |
| Whether the defendant could have obtained a different plea or trial strategy to avoid deportation. | Better plea options could have been pursued with proper advice. | No substantial basis shown for a different rational outcome. | Not demonstrated; no reasonable probability of different result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (deportation consequences must be considered in counsel's representation; not a new rule, retroactive on collateral review.)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice.)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (new rules generally not retroactive on collateral review; Teague framework applied.)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (case-by-case application of Strickland; old rule can be applied without creating a new rule.)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (counsel's failure to file an appeal can be analyzed under Strickland's framework.)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice in plea context requires showing rational rejection of plea would have occurred.)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (Mass. 1974) (Massachusetts standard for ineffective assistance aligns with Strickland.)
- Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1992) (case-by-case evaluation relevant to Strickland’s application.)
- St. Cyr v. INS, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2001) (evidence of immigration consequences intersects with Sixth Amendment rights.)
- Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (applies Strickland framework to appeal-related decisions.)