Commonwealth v. Lys
110 N.E.3d 1201
Mass.2018Background
- Defendant, a lawful permanent resident from Haiti, pleaded guilty in District Court to multiple controlled-substance offenses; the plea made him deportable and federal deportation proceedings followed.
- He was sentenced to 18 months in a house of correction and probation; several school‑zone counts carrying mandatory minimums were nolle prossed as part of the plea.
- Defendant moved for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b), alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to advise him of immigration consequences; defendant submitted two affidavits asserting he was not warned.
- The motion judge (who also had accepted the plea) held a nonevidentiary hearing, found counsel’s performance constitutionally deficient but found no prejudice, and denied the motion.
- The Appeals Court affirmed; the Supreme Judicial Court granted further review and vacated the denial, remanding for further findings and, if needed, an evidentiary hearing because the motion judge may have misapplied his discretion when crediting affidavits and failed to make factual findings on "special circumstances."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel rendered constitutionally deficient assistance by not advising about deportation consequences | Commonwealth: judge’s finding of deficiency was erroneous (contested here) | Lys: plea counsel failed to explain immigration consequences; counsel was deficient | Court did not decide merits; remanded because judge may have misapplied discretion in crediting defendant’s affidavits without counsel’s affidavit or findings |
| Whether defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficiency (i.e., whether he would have rejected plea) | Commonwealth: no prejudice; judge found no special circumstances to show prejudice | Lys: would have pursued other options, including trial, had he known deportation risk | Vacated denial and remanded: judge failed to make factual findings on special circumstances and must reassess prejudice under Clarke/Lavrinenko framework |
| Proper process on Rule 30(b) claims when prior counsel does not submit affidavit/testify | Commonwealth: absence of counsel’s affidavit undermines defendant’s claims | Lys: absence of plea counsel’s affidavit does not by itself defeat the claim; defendant’s affidavits suffice to raise substantial issue | Court: judge has discretion to credit or discredit defendant’s affidavits even when prior counsel is silent; must explain credibility determinations and, if substantial issue is raised, hold evidentiary hearing |
| What factual showing is required to show "special circumstances" for immigration-related prejudice | Commonwealth: argued no special circumstances here | Lys: alleged ties to U.S., long residence, family/girlfriend here, inability to return to Haiti, language/learning disability, TPS in effect | Court: remanded — if judge finds the alleged factors existed, it would likely be an abuse of discretion to conclude they are not special circumstances; judge must evaluate their collective weight in totality analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (ineffective-assistance rule requiring counsel to advise of "truly clear" deportation consequences)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance challenges to guilty pleas)
- Commonwealth v. Lavrinenko, 473 Mass. 42 (prejudice/totality framework for withdrawing plea due to immigration‑consequence advice)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 460 Mass. 30 (Massachusetts application of Padilla; defining "special circumstances")
- Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422 (remand guidance when motion judge must make findings and possibly hold evidentiary hearing)