People v. Abdallah
153 A.D.3d 1424
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Defendant Muhammad Abdallah, a Barbados citizen, pleaded guilty to second-degree grand larceny in exchange for six months' incarceration and five years' probation. Sentence was imposed March 21, 2013.
- He did not appeal. In April 2014, federal immigration authorities began removal proceedings; Abdallah was detained and faced mandatory deportation.
- Abdallah moved under CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate his conviction, alleging defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him that the plea would preserve eligibility for cancellation of removal.
- At the CPL 440 hearing both Abdallah and his attorney testified the attorney had relied on an Immigration Defense Project attorney and told Abdallah he could apply for cancellation of removal.
- The Supreme Court (Queens County) denied the motion, finding counsel’s advice was not objectively unreasonable and that Abdallah had not shown prejudice; the Appellate Division reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by misadvising about immigration consequences of the plea | People: counsel’s conduct did not fall below objective standard; advice not prejudicial | Abdallah: counsel misadvised that plea preserved eligibility for cancellation of removal when conviction was an aggravated felony making him ineligible | Reversed: counsel’s misadvice about clear immigration consequences was objectively unreasonable (Padilla duty applies) |
| Whether defendant was prejudiced by the misadvice (Strickland/Hill standard) | People: prosecutor would not have accepted a different plea; evidence was strong so negotiations unlikely to yield non-deportable disposition | Abdallah: had strong incentive to avoid deportation; prosecutor unconcerned about immigration consequences; alternative plea (possession of stolen property) was possible and carried no immigration consequences | Reversed: defendant established a reasonable probability he could have obtained a plea that avoided mandatory deportation or preserved eligibility for relief; prejudice shown |
| Whether relief under CPL 440.10(1)(h) should vacate the plea and judgment | People: no relief warranted because no deficient performance or prejudice | Abdallah: vacatur required because plea induced by incorrect immigration advice | Granted: vacatur of the judgment (and plea) and remand for further proceedings on the indictment |
| Standard for advising noncitizen defendants about immigration consequences of pleas | People: (implicit) Padilla limited; counsel reasonably relied on outside immigration advice | Abdallah: where immigration statute is clear, counsel must give correct advice; reliance on incorrect informal advice insufficient | Reiterated Padilla: where statutory consequences are clear, counsel has duty to correctly advise; failure is unreasonable assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (defense counsel must advise re: deportation risk; duty stronger where statute’s consequences are clear)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard in plea context)
- People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137 (New York standard for meaningful representation)
- People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (prejudice under NY Constitution focuses on fairness of process)
- People v. McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109 (Padilla principles applied in NY)
- People v. Parson, 27 N.Y.3d 1107 (plea‑context prejudice articulation)
- U.S. v. Swaby, 855 F.3d 233 (applying Padilla in federal circuit; counsel’s misadvice re: deportation can warrant relief)
- Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44 (2d Cir.) (prejudice may be shown where defendant would have accepted alternative plea avoiding deportation)