Commonwealth v. Sylvain
466 Mass. 422
| Mass. | 2013Background
- In 2007 Kempess Sylvain, a lawful noncitizen, pleaded guilty in Boston Municipal Court to simple possession of cocaine; his conviction became final October 2, 2007. In exchange for the plea, more serious charges were dismissed and he received a suspended sentence under one year.
- Sylvain later filed a Rule 30(b) motion (motion for a new trial) alleging counsel misadvised him that the plea would not lead to deportation; counsel admitted advising that a sentence under one year would avoid deportation.
- The motion judge denied relief without written findings; Sylvain appealed. While his appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Chaidez, holding Padilla announced a new rule and does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.
- Massachusetts had earlier held in Commonwealth v. Clarke that Padilla’s rule (counsel must advise about deportation consequences) was not a “new” rule and applied retroactively; Chaidez cast that holding into doubt.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court here: (1) concluded under state law (drawing on Danforth) Padilla was not a new rule and remains retroactive for state collateral review for convictions final after April 1, 1997; (2) held art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights also requires counsel to give accurate immigration advice and that this protection is retroactive; and (3) remanded for findings on whether Sylvain proved the prejudice required to vacate his plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sylvain) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla’s Sixth Amendment rule applies retroactively in Massachusetts despite Chaidez | Padilla is not a “new” rule under Massachusetts retroactivity (Bray/Danforth) so it applies to Sylvain’s final 2007 conviction | Chaidez controls federal retroactivity and Padilla created a new rule; Massachusetts should not give broader retroactivity | Court holds Padilla is not a "new" rule under Massachusetts law and remains retroactive for state collateral review (convictions final after April 1, 1997) |
| Whether art. 12 (Mass. Declaration of Rights) requires counsel to advise noncitizen defendants about deportation consequences | Art. 12 independently requires counsel to provide accurate immigration consequences advice, and that right is retroactive | Commonwealth argued no basis for art. 12 to supply retroactive remedy beyond federal law | Court holds art. 12 imposes duty to advise and that duty is retroactive on collateral review |
| Whether counsel’s admitted statement constituted deficient performance | Sylvain: counsel’s advice (that <1 year sentence would avoid deportation) was incorrect under federal immigration law and thus constitutionally deficient | Commonwealth did not dispute the incorrectness of the advice but contested prejudice and remedy | Court finds counsel’s admitted advice was constitutionally inadequate (satisfies first prong) |
| Whether Sylvain proved prejudice to vacate plea | Sylvain: affidavit says he would have gone to trial had he known deportation risk; argues special circumstances and prior removal proceedings show emphasis on immigration risk | Commonwealth: absence of findings, factual doubts about credibility and whether a rational defendant would have rejected the plea | Court remands for factual findings/credibility on prejudice (reasonable probability he would have gone to trial / decision rational under the circumstances) |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise about deportation consequences of a plea)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule under Teague and is not retroactive on federal collateral review)
- Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008) (states may give broader retroactive effect to new rules than federal Teague permits)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for determining retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 460 Mass. 30 (2011) (Massachusetts held Padilla not new and retroactive on state collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Marinho, 464 Mass. 115 (2013) (under prevailing Massachusetts norms counsel must inform noncitizen clients that conviction may carry immigration consequences)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974) (Massachusetts two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (federal two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty‑plea ineffective assistance claims)