Olorunfunmi v. Commissioner of Correction, 211 Conn.App. 291

Petitioner Ibraheen Olorunfunmi, a Nigerian national, pleaded guilty to larceny in the second degree pursuant to a plea agreement that capped incarceration at three years. He did not directly appeal and was later deported.
At the plea canvass counsel (Egan) and the court advised the petitioner that a conviction could have immigration/deportation consequences; Egan stated he consulted an immigration attorney and sought a reduction from first- to second-degree larceny partly to lessen deportation risk.
After conviction and deportation, petitioner filed a habeas petition alleging Padilla-based ineffective assistance: counsel failed to advise him that second-degree larceny was an "aggravated felony" that would almost certainly result in deportation.
At the habeas trial Egan testified he had discussed deportation repeatedly, consulted the petitioner’s immigration counsel, and that the petitioner’s primary concern was prison time; immigration counsel testified aggravated-felony conviction makes removal virtually inevitable.
The habeas court found Egan highly credible, discredited petitioner’s testimony as largely untruthful and self-serving, and concluded petitioner failed to prove prejudice (that he would have gone to trial instead of pleading).
The habeas court denied relief and denied certification to appeal; the appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding petitioner failed to show the Padilla claim was debatable or that he suffered the required prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance under Padilla by failing to advise that pleading to 2nd‑degree larceny would likely cause deportation	Petitioner: Egan told him 2nd‑degree larceny would not make him deportable; had he known otherwise he would have gone to trial	State/Habeas court: Egan adequately warned of immigration consequences, consulted immigration counsel, and petitioner focused on sentence reduction	Court: Even assuming deficient advice, petitioner failed to prove prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have rejected plea and proceeded to trial); certification denied
Whether the habeas court’s credibility findings (based partly on petitioner’s deposition transcript) warrant reduced deference on appeal	Petitioner: credibility finding based on a “cold” record (deposition) should receive less deference	State: trial court is sole factfinder; it heard live testimony from Egan and had basis to reject petitioner’s account	Court: Rejected petitioner’s argument; appellate review must defer to habeas court’s credibility determinations

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (defense counsel must advise noncitizen clients about deportation risks of a plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland prejudice prong adapted for guilty pleas — must show probability defendant would have gone to trial)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (post hoc assertions about how a defendant would have pled require contemporaneous corroborating evidence)
Budziszewski v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 504 (Padilla analysis under Connecticut law; counsel must unequivocally convey mandated deportation when federal law so provides)
Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (standards for appellate review where habeas court denied certification to appeal)