Echeverria v. Commissioner of Correction, 193 Conn.App. 1

Petitioner Sergio Echeverria, a Bolivian national who entered the U.S. unlawfully as a child, was arrested after police found large quantities of drugs, cash, and an altered firearm; he was charged with multiple felony drug and weapons offenses.
Petitioner retained Attorney Michael Skiber; after plea negotiations (including an early offer with jail time that petitioner declined), the court allowed an open guilty plea to two counts with a conditional offer to vacate the plea and grant accelerated rehabilitation if petitioner paid $10,000.
Petitioner pleaded guilty; later the court determined he was ineligible for accelerated rehabilitation, and the parties agreed to a disposition of five years imprisonment, execution suspended, and three years probation; petitioner did not withdraw his plea.
DHS instituted removal proceedings; an immigration judge ordered petitioner removable. Petitioner then filed a habeas petition alleging counsel failed to advise him properly about deportation consequences under Padilla.
At the habeas trial, petitioner testified he would not have pleaded guilty had he known the plea would cause deportation; counsel testified he repeatedly warned petitioner a conviction would lead to deportation and that avoiding double‑digit incarceration was petitioner’s primary concern. The trial court credited counsel, found no prejudice, denied the habeas petition, and the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel failed to advise petitioner of mandatory deportation (Padilla claim)	Skiber did not properly inform Echeverria that the plea would lead to mandatory deportation.	Skiber repeatedly warned petitioner a conviction of this magnitude would result in deportation and completed plea canvass warnings.	Court did not need to resolve performance definitively because petitioner failed on prejudice; credibility favored counsel.
Whether petitioner was prejudiced (reasonable probability he would have gone to trial)	Echeverria would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial if he had known the plea mandated deportation (relying on Lee).	Avoiding lengthy incarceration was determinative; petitioner faced much greater exposure at trial and showed no contemporaneous intent to refuse plea despite canvass warnings.	No prejudice shown: habeas court credited counsel; petitioner failed to prove he would have gone to trial.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen clients about immigration consequences of guilty pleas)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (defendant shows prejudice if deportation was determinative and contemporaneous evidence supports that he would have gone to trial)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (application of Strickland in plea context)
Budziszewski v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 504 (2016) (Connecticut guidance on Padilla: counsel must unequivocally convey mandated deportation when federal law removes discretion)
Flomo v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 266 (2016) (standards of review and ineffective assistance analysis in Connecticut)