176 Conn. App. 616
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Petitioner Peter Miller, a Jamaican national, pleaded guilty in Connecticut (June 2012) to possession with intent to sell (a state drug offense) pursuant to a plea deal and was sentenced to seven years (execution suspended after 16 months).
- The guilty plea was to an offense that qualifies as an "aggravated felony" under federal immigration law; the U.S. Immigration Court later ordered Miller removed as mandatorily deportable.
- Miller filed a habeas petition alleging trial counsel Jared Millbrandt provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him accurately that the plea mandated deportation.
- At the habeas trial, Millbrandt testified he advised Miller there was a "substantial likelihood" or that it was "safe to assume" Miller would be deported, but did not say deportation was mandated or automatic. Miller testified he was not told deportation was certain and that he would have gone to trial if so informed.
- The habeas court found counsel investigated immigration issues and discussed them with Miller, concluded counsel met minimal standards (though advice "fell slightly short" of categorical certainty), denied relief and certification to appeal. The Appellate Court granted review and reversed on performance, remanding for a prejudice determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court abused discretion denying certification to appeal | Issues are debatable among jurists; certification should be granted | Habeas court reasonably found appeal frivolous | Abuse of discretion; certification denial reversed |
| Whether trial counsel's advice about immigration consequences was constitutionally adequate under Padilla/Budziszewski | Millbrandt failed to unequivocally advise that plea to an aggravated felony mandatorily results in deportation | Counsel discussed immigration, told client to assume deportation or that substantial likelihood existed; met minimal standard | Counsel's performance was deficient — failed to unequivocally convey mandatory deportation |
| Whether Miller was prejudiced by counsel's deficient advice (Strickland prejudice) | Miller would have rejected plea and gone to trial if told deportation was mandatory | Habeas court did not reach prejudice; respondent contends no reasonable probability of different choice | Record inadequate to resolve prejudice; remanded to habeas court for findings |
| Standard for advising noncitizen plea clients when deportation is mandated | Padilla requires accurate, unequivocal advice when deportation consequence is clear; Budziszewski clarifies requirement for aggravated felonies | Counsel met standards if he warned of risk; historic practice sufficient | Applied Padilla/Budziszewski: unequivocal advice required when law is clear; counsel failed to meet it |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (criminal defense counsel must advise noncitizen clients accurately about clear immigration consequences of pleas)
- Budziszewski v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 504 (Connecticut Supreme Court: when conviction mandates deportation counsel must unequivocally convey that consequence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland prejudice adapted for guilty-plea challenges)
- Duncan v. Commissioner of Correction, 171 Conn. App. 635 (appellate application of Budziszewski: counsel deficient for warning only of "heightened risk")