Kovacs v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3899
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Kovacs, an Australian national and US permanent resident, pled guilty in 1999 to misprision of felony based on his lawyer's advice; the government believed immigration consequences would be minimal.
- Counsel repeatedly told Kovacs that misprision of felony was not deportable, influencing the plea and plea allocution transcripts.
- Kovacs was sentenced in 2001 and completed restitution; probation terminated early in 2006, and he traveled internationally thereafter.
- In 2009 immigration authorities questioned his reentry eligibility due to alleged immigration consequences of the conviction.
- Kovacs sought coram nobis relief in 2012 alleging ineffective assistance; the district court denied without an evidentiary hearing, and the Second Circuit reversed.
- Court must determine if prevailing Supreme Court and Second Circuit standards apply retroactively under Teague and whether Kovacs suffered prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misadvice on immigration consequences can support coram nobis relief | Kovacs argues ineffective assistance and prejudice under Strickland and Frye/Hill theories. | Government contends no prejudice or proper standard applies to plea misadvice at the time. | Yes; misadvice can be prejudicial under Strickland when it affected immigration outcomes. |
| Retroactivity of Couto to Kovacs’ case | Couto applied to similar misadvice; Kovacs seeks retroactive application via Teague. | Couto is a new rule; Teague bars retroactive application to final convictions. | Couto applies retroactively to Kovacs because the rule was already indicated by existing precedent. |
| Prejudice standard applicable to plea misadvice in coram nobis | Kovacs could show prejudice either via a better plea or a meritorious defense if misadvice had not occurred. | Hill and Frye tests govern prejudice focus and outcome. | Kovacs satisfied prejudice under either avenue: potential favorable plea and viable defense could have changed immigration consequences. |
| Timeliness of the coram nobis petition | Delay due to lack of awareness of coram nobis; diligent pursuit since 2011 justifies lateness. | Delay undermines fairness; petition untimely. | Petition timely; extraordinary remedy warrants consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (plea negotiation prejudice framework)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice from plea competency in Strickland context)
- Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice from better plea offers in pretrial)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2013) (Teague retroactivity framework; settled vs new rule)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (new-rule determination for collateral review)
- Couto v. United States, 311 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2002) (affirmative misrepresentation of deportation consequences is unreasonable)
- Sasonov v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 2d 626 (D.N.J. 2008) (immigration consequences may influence plea negotiation)
- Kwan v. United States, 407 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (plea negotiation could avoid deportation)
- Moya v. City of Oklahoma, 676 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2012) (prejudice assessment in plea context)
- Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996) (standards for timeliness and justifiable delay in coram nobis)
- Santelises v. United States, 509 F.2d 703 (2d Cir. 1975) (early precedent on deportation considerations in counsel conduct)