Kazadi v. People
2012 CO 73
| Colo. | 2012Background
- Kazadi pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and received a two-year deferred judgment and sentence for the felony and two years of probation for a misdemeanor.
- The deferred judgment statute, § 18-1.3-102, and a stipulation with the district attorney preserved continuity of the case without entry of a final judgment pending compliance.
- If Kazadi satisfied the conditions, the plea could be withdrawn and the charge dismissed with prejudice; breach allowed the court to impose sentence.
- Kazadi faced deportation consequences under federal immigration law, and signed a Crim. P. 11 advisement acknowledging possible removal.
- Kazadi moved for postconviction relief under Crim. P. 35(c) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not informing him of removal consequences; district court denied; appeal addressed whether Crim. P. 35(c) applies to deferred judgments.
- The Colorado Supreme Court held that the deferred judgment precludes Crim. P. 35(c) review while the deferred period is in effect, but permits withdrawal of the guilty plea under Crim. P. 32(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deferred judgment bars Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction review | People argued 35(c) applies to all postconviction claims, regardless of deferred status | Kazadi argued 35(c) should be available notwithstanding deferred judgment | No; 35(c) review is unavailable during the deferred period |
| Whether Kazadi may withdraw the guilty plea under Crim. P. 32(d) | People argued withdrawal under 32(d) is not appropriate during deferment | Kazadi contends withdrawal is available under 32(d) before sentencing | Yes; Kazadi may move to withdraw under 32(d) prior to sentencing |
| Whether Crim. P. 82(d) provides an adequate alternative | People favored Rule 32(d) withdrawal pathway | Kazadi urged Rule 82(d) as substitute | Rule 82(d) is an adequate, though not exclusive, route to withdraw the plea |
| Whether 18-1-410 and Rule 85(c) allow postconviction relief for deferred judgments | People rely on 18-1-410 and Rule 85(c) to permit relief | Kazadi contends relief should be available via 35(c) or Rule 85(c) after deferred judgment | Deferred judgment does not preclude relief under Rule 85(c) when appropriate; but 35(c) not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carbajal, 198 P.3d 102 (Colo.2008) (deferred judgments not final; not subject to 35(c) review until revoked)
- Ellsworth v. People, 987 P.2d 264 (Colo.1999) (deferred judgment not final judgment for review)
- Widhalm, 642 P.2d 498 (Colo.1982) (deferral mechanism allows dismissal if conditions met)
- Manzanares, 85 P.3d 604 (Colo.App.2003) (deferred judgment akin to probation)
- People v. Anderson, 703 P.2d 650 (Colo.App.1985) (Anderson rejected treating deferred judgment as suspension for 32(d))
- Crumb v. People, 230 P.3d 726 (Colo.2010) (non-exclusive factors for withdrawal standard; fairness to prosecution)
- People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523 (Colo.1987) (duty to inform regarding deportation consequences; effective counsel standards)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) ( Sixth Amendment requires counsel to inform of deportation risk)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (plea bargaining process; importance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (effective counsel standard in guilty plea context)
- Schneider, 25 P.3d 755 (Colo.2001) (postconviction relief to address fairness; plea context)
- Roybal, 618 P.2d 1121 (Colo.1980) (Sixth Amendment and plea bargains)