People v. Andrews
108 A.D.3d 727
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty on March 14, 2008 to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, with an agreement that completion of drug treatment would vacate the plea.
- Defendant failed to complete drug treatment and was sentenced on September 3, 2008 to six months’ imprisonment.
- Immigration authorities filed removal proceedings alleging the conviction was deportable.
- On September 24, 2010, defendant moved under CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not advising on immigration consequences, citing Padilla v. Kentucky.
- Supreme Court denied the motion on the basis that Padilla did not apply retroactively and that prejudice was not shown; leave to appeal was granted by a Justice of this Court.
- Chaidez v United States (2013) later held Padilla announced a new rule not retroactive to pre-Padilla final convictions; this ruling governs the present case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla is retroactive under Chaidez. | Padilla should apply retroactively to vacate the conviction. | Chaidez bars retroactive application; pre-Padilla final conviction cannot be affected. | No retroactive application; Chaidez controls. |
| Whether New York retroactivity factors support applying Padilla retroactively. | Danforth authority allows broader state-court retroactivity. | Pepper factors favor nonretroactivity; old standard applied to final convictions. | Pepper factors do not support retroactivity; Padilla not retroactively applied. |
| Whether retroactivity would create a flood of CPL 440.10 motions undermining justice. | Padilla would require reopening more guilty-plea cases. | Administrative burden and justice concerns warrant nonretroactive rule. | Not retroactively applied for cases final before Padilla; no floodgate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment duty to inform of deportation risks; retroactivity later clarified)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule not retroactive to pre-Padilla final convictions)
- Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008) (state courts may give broader retroactivity than Teague, but not in this context)
- People v Pepper, 53 N.Y.2d 213 (1981) (three-factor test for retroactivity under New York Constitution)
- People v. McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109 (2003) (ineffective assistance under old standard; immigration consequences not required to render plea involuntary)
- People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397 (1995) (failure to inform of deportation consequences does not render plea involuntary)
- Policano v. Herbert, 7 N.Y.3d 588 (2006) (retroactivity concerns and policy considerations for state appellate relief)