Noze v. Commissioner of Correction
173 A.3d 525
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Mackenzy Noze, a Haitian national, pleaded guilty in 2012 to possession of narcotics with intent to sell (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-277(a)) pursuant to a plea agreement that reduced exposure from three sale counts carrying up to 60 years to a single count; plea recommended seven years, execution largely suspended, and ultimately sentenced to an effective one year incarcerated.
- At the plea hearing the court advised generally that noncitizens "may face" immigration consequences; defense counsel (Barry) told the court he was not an immigration lawyer but had advised the petitioner to consult one.
- After serving the nonsuspended portion of his sentence, petitioner was detained by immigration authorities in 2014 and faced mandatory deportation because the conviction was an "aggravated felony" under federal law.
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments (Padilla/Strickland/Hill framework) because counsel allegedly failed to clearly and unequivocally warn him that the plea would mandate deportation.
- At the habeas trial, petitioner testified counsel did not warn him and that he would have gone to trial if warned. Counsel testified he repeatedly discussed immigration consequences, arranged (and canceled) an immigration consult at the client’s direction, and that petitioner prioritized minimizing incarceration over immigration concerns. The habeas court credited counsel and denied the habeas petition and certification to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to unequivocally advise that plea mandated deportation | Noze: Barry failed to clearly warn that conviction would result in mandatory deportation, violating Padilla; would have gone to trial if properly advised | Respondent: Barry informed Noze of immigration risk, urged immigration counsel, and Noze elected the plea to minimize incarceration | Court: Denied—focused on prejudice and found petitioner failed to show reasonable probability he would have rejected plea and gone to trial |
| Whether petitioner proved prejudice under Strickland/Hill (that but for counsel’s error he would have gone to trial) | Noze: Testified he would have insisted on trial if warned of deportation | Respondent: Evidence showed strong case against Noze and his desire to minimize sentence made trial irrational; habeas court credited counsel | Court: Denied—no reasonable probability petitioner would have chosen trial; habeas credibility findings upheld |
| Whether habeas court abused discretion in refusing certification to appeal | Noze: Certification should be granted because issue is debatable among jurists | Respondent: No clear legal or factual grounds to dispute habeas findings | Court: Denied—the issues were not debatable; habeas court did not abuse discretion |
| Applicability of Padilla and modification of Strickland prejudice in plea context | Noze: Padilla requires unequivocal advice when deportation is mandated | Respondent: Even under Padilla, petitioner must show prejudice in plea context | Court: Applied Padilla standard but resolved claim on Hill/Strickland prejudice—petitioner failed to satisfy it |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client whether plea carries risk of deportation; unequivocal advice required when deportation is mandated)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (in plea cases prejudice requires a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would have gone to trial)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (standards for appellate review where habeas court denies certification to appeal)
- Budziszewski v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 504 (2016) (interpreting Padilla under Connecticut law; counsel must unequivocally advise when federal law mandates deportation)