148 So. 3d 1056
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jeanty, a Haitian national and lawful permanent resident since 1999, pleaded guilty to business burglary (May 23, 2005) and later to motor-vehicle theft and felony evasion (July 18, 2007).
- Sentences were ordered to run consecutively; he received multi-year terms and supervised release/post-release supervision components.
- Jeanty filed a PCR motion on November 13, 2012 arguing counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that guilty pleas could lead to deportation; the court dismissed it as untimely.
- After receiving a notice to appear for removal proceedings (Nov. 28, 2012), he filed another coram nobis motion (treated as a PCR motion) raising the same ineffective-assistance claim; the circuit court dismissed it as time-barred and successive.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the motion was procedurally barred and substantively without merit because Padilla’s rule requiring advice about deportation did not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCR | Jeanty argued counsel’s failure warranted relief despite delay | State: PCR was filed beyond three-year statutory limit after convictions | Dismissed as time-barred (untimely) |
| Successive-writ bar | Jeanty reasserted same claim after prior PCR dismissal | State: Uniform PCR Act bars successive motions raising same issue | Dismissed as successive and barred |
| Ineffective assistance for not advising about deportation | Counsel failed to inform Jeanty that pleading guilty risked deportation, prejudicing him | State: Padilla rule requiring such advice did not exist at plea dates and does not apply retroactively | No merit; Strickland not satisfied because Padilla is not retroactive |
| Proper treatment of coram nobis motion | Jeanty sought to vacate pleas via coram nobis | State: PCR statutes replace coram nobis and motion properly treated as PCR | Court treated motion as PCR and applied PCR rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (attorney must advise client whether plea carries risk of deportation)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla rule does not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)