Flomo v. Commissioner of Correction
149 A.3d 185
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Henry Flomo, a Liberian national admitted as a permanent resident, was charged with sexual offenses arising from an incident involving a 15‑year‑old; maximum exposure on original counts was up to 45 years.
- Defense counsel negotiated plea deals; petitioner ultimately entered an Alford plea to risk of injury to a child (§ 53‑21(a)(1)) in Feb. 2014 with a recommended sentence of five years, execution suspended after one year, and probation; plea avoided sex‑offender registration.
- During the plea canvass the court warned of possible immigration consequences; defense counsel told the court he had discussed immigration consequences with petitioner "several times in great detail." Petitioner later denied understanding the likelihood of deportation.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings; after administrative proceedings the Immigration Court concluded the conviction rendered petitioner removable and ordered deportation; petitioner was deported to Liberia.
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition claiming (1) ineffective assistance under Padilla for inadequate advice about immigration consequences, and (2) plea was not knowing/voluntary because the trial court failed to ensure he understood the immigration consequences.
- The habeas court credited defense counsel’s testimony that he discussed deportation risk with petitioner, found petitioner was focused on avoiding sex‑offender stigma and minimizing incarceration, and denied relief after concluding petitioner failed to show prejudice under Strickland/Hill.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to advise properly of immigration consequences violated Strickland/Padilla | Flomo: counsel didn’t adequately advise him of near‑certainty of deportation and thus provided ineffective assistance; he would have rejected plea and gone to trial | State: counsel discussed immigration risk; even if deficient, petitioner cannot show he would have rationally rejected a favorable plea and gone to trial | Court: Denied — petitioner failed to prove prejudice under Strickland/Hill; credibility findings supported that petitioner was unconcerned about deportation and would not have rejected plea |
| Whether the trial court’s canvass rendered plea unknowing/invalid by not ensuring petitioner understood precise immigration risk | Flomo: court had independent duty to ensure he knew the near certainty of deportation, so plea was involuntary | State: court substantially complied with statutory canvass (§54‑1j); immigration consequences are collateral, not of constitutional magnitude for Boykin purposes | Court: Denied — immigration consequences are collateral; substantial compliance satisfied statutory duty and no constitutional rule requires more detailed canvass |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (advice about deportation falls within Sixth Amendment counsel duties)
- 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) (prejudice inquiry for plea‑based ineffective assistance requires showing petitioner would have gone to trial)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (plea must be knowing and voluntary; court must canvass defendant)
- State v. Malcolm, 257 Conn. 653 (Conn. 2001) (immigration consequences are collateral; substantial compliance with canvass statute sufficient)
- Thiersaint v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 89 (Conn. 2015) (Padilla and related ineffective assistance principles explained)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (U.S. 2013) (statutory offense‑categorization principles relevant to immigration removability determinations)