Duncan v. Commissioner of Correction
AC37366
| Conn. App. Ct. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- Petitioner Patton E. Duncan, a lawful permanent resident of Jamaica, pleaded guilty under Alford to larceny in the third degree (Hartford case) and to assault/reckless endangerment (New Britain case); plea in Hartford required payment of $6,000 restitution by a set date to avoid conviction.
- At Hartford plea canvass court warned Duncan that noncitizens may face deportation; Duncan pled and was later sentenced to 15 months (execution suspended after 60 days) when only $3,000 was produced at sentencing.
- DHS commenced removal proceedings based on the larceny conviction as an aggravated felony; Duncan was ordered removed and was deported to Jamaica in 2013.
- Duncan filed a habeas petition alleging (1) pleas were not knowing/voluntary (due process) and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel: Freeman (Hartford) and Goulet-Case (New Britain) failed to advise accurately about immigration consequences.
- Habeas court denied relief and denied certification to appeal; appellate court reviewed whether denial of certification was an abuse of discretion by analyzing the merits (Strickland/Hill framework).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freeman (Hartford counsel) provided constitutionally effective assistance | Freeman failed to tell Duncan that pleading to larceny with >1 year would mandatorily produce deportation (aggravated felony) | Freeman discussed immigration risk and advised consulting immigration counsel; canvass warned Duncan of possible deportation | Counsel’s performance was deficient under Padilla/Budziszewski because he did not unequivocally convey the mandatory deportation consequence |
| Whether Goulet-Case (New Britain counsel) provided constitutionally effective assistance | Failed to investigate/advise about immigration status and consequences | New Britain conviction did not affect immigration outcome; counsel assumed citizenship but no prejudice shown | Counsel performed deficiently in assuming citizenship, but no prejudice from New Britain plea so ineffective-assistance claim denied |
| Whether petitioner proved prejudice required for plea-stage Strickland/Hill relief | Duncan would have rejected the plea and gone to trial if he had known about mandatory deportation; deportation and its harms constitute prejudice | Prejudice under Hill requires that but for counsel’s error petitioner would have gone to trial; here rejecting the plea would have been irrational because restitution would have avoided conviction and terms were favorable | No prejudice found: habeas court discredited Duncan’s claim he would have rejected plea; appellate court declined to find prejudice and thus denied relief |
| Whether pleas were involuntary in violation of due process because of lack of immigration advice | Pleas not knowing/voluntary because counsel did not explain mandatory deportation | Immigration consequences are collateral for Boykin purposes; due process claim is dependent on ineffective-assistance claim and fails where no prejudice shown | Due process claim rejected: immigration consequences treated as collateral and claim is inseparable from ineffective-assistance analysis; certification denial not an abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen defendant about deportation risk; when consequences are clear, counsel must give correct advice)
- Budziszewski v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 504 (Conn. 2016) (clarifies Padilla: when deportation is mandated by federal law counsel must unequivocally inform client; review totality of counsel’s advice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice prong for plea-stage ineffective assistance requires showing defendant would have insisted on trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (prejudice may be presumed where denial of counsel or constructive denial renders proceeding presumptively unreliable)
- Flomo v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 266 (Conn. App. 2016) (immigration consequences are collateral for Boykin due-process canvass; Padilla applies to Sixth Amendment counsel claims)