150 Conn.App. 68
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Jose Guerra, a Guatemalan national, pleaded guilty in 2003 to first‑degree assault pursuant to a plea agreement that resulted in five years incarceration (execution suspended) and five years probation; court canvass advised him that conviction might have immigration consequences.
- Guerra completed probation on March 27, 2008; he filed a state habeas petition on November 30, 2011 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing adequately to advise him about deportation consequences (relying on Padilla v. Kentucky).
- The habeas court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑466 because Guerra was no longer “in custody” on the challenged conviction when he filed the petition.
- Guerra appealed, arguing Padilla requires that exposure to deportation can satisfy habeas custody requirement or otherwise permit review of counsel’s failure to advise before a guilty plea.
- The state argued Padilla did not alter the custody requirement for state habeas jurisdiction, Padilla is not retroactive to convictions already final, and that Guerra had been adequately advised in any event.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal, holding Padilla did not eliminate the statutory custody requirement and collateral consequences (including deportation exposure) cannot substitute for present restraint once sentence expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla altered habeas “in custody” requirement so collateral deportation exposure suffices | Guerra: Padilla’s focus on deportation means exposure to deportation keeps a conviction reviewable by habeas even after sentence expiration | State: Padilla did not address or change custody requirement for habeas jurisdiction; collateral consequences are insufficient | Court: Padilla did not eliminate custody requirement; collateral consequences do not satisfy it |
| Whether petitioner was in custody when habeas petition filed | Guerra: remained subject to deportation and thus effectively restrained by conviction | State: sentence and probation had fully expired in 2008; no present restraint in 2011 | Court: petitioner was not in custody when petition filed; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether court should reach Padilla‑based ineffective assistance claim on merits | Guerra: merits should be considered if jurisdiction exists; counsel failed to warn about deportation | State: jurisdictional bar precludes merits; Padilla not retroactive to pre‑Padilla final convictions | Court: did not reach merits because of lack of jurisdiction |
| Retroactivity of Padilla to convictions final before decision | Guerra: argued Padilla principles apply | State: Padilla has been held nonretroactive (Chaidez) | Court: noted Chaidez limits Padilla’s retroactivity and thus the petitioner’s likely inability to prevail even if jurisdiction existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise noncitizen clients about deportation risk of guilty plea)
- Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (Conn. 2006) (state habeas requires petitioner be in custody under challenged conviction to invoke jurisdiction)
- Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 507 (Conn. 2005) (collateral consequences insufficient to satisfy habeas custody requirement once sentence expired)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1989) (expired sentence’s collateral consequences do not render petitioner ‘‘in custody’’ for habeas)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (U.S. 2013) (Padilla does not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla)