Denisyuk v. State
30 A.3d 914
Md.2011Background
- Petitioner Mark Denisyuk, a Latvian immigrant, pled guilty in 2006 to second-degree assault under a binding plea, receiving 10 years' incarceration with three years' supervised probation.
- At the plea, neither defense counsel, the court, nor the State advised Denisyuk of immigration consequences of the plea.
- Denisyuk filed a postconviction petition in 2007 seeking vacation of the conviction and a new trial on ineffective assistance and involuntariness grounds.
- The postconviction court granted relief—vacating the plea and ordering a new trial—based on defense counsel's failure to advise about immigration consequences.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding deportation consequences to be collateral and not mandatorily advised about under the Sixth Amendment; Padilla v. Kentucky was decided after this ruling.
- Maryland Supreme Court held Padilla retroactively applies to convictions based on guilty pleas after April 1, 1997, and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced Denisyuk, entitling him to a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla applies to postconviction relief. | Denisyuk | State | Padilla applies to postconviction claims. |
| Whether Padilla is retroactive on collateral review in Maryland. | Denisyuk | State | Padilla applies retroactively to cases after 1997 IIRAIRA. |
| Whether defense counsel's failure to advise on deportation issues constitutes deficient performance under Strickland. | Denisyuk | State | Yes; counsel's failure was deficient per Padilla and Strickland. |
| Whether Denisyuk was prejudiced by lack of immigration guidance. | Denisyuk | State | Yes; sworn affidavit showing would have gone to trial established prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (guilty-plea prejudice standard in Strickland context)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2001) (removal consequences tied to criminal convictions)
- State v. Daughtry, 419 Md. 35 (Md. 2011) (retroactivity framework for new rules in Maryland)
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (Padilla as application of Strickland to deportation risk)
- Potts v. State, 300 Md. 567 (Md. 1984) (retroactivity and new-rule considerations in Maryland)
- Strickland v. Washington (repeated citation for context), 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (foundation for defining deficient performance and prejudice)