123 A.D.3d 466
N.Y. App. Div.2014Background
- Defendant Robert Brazil pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced as a second felony drug offender (with a prior violent felony) to 2½ years.
- Defendant later appealed, claiming his plea was involuntary because the trial court did not advise him that a noncitizen could face deportation as a result of the plea.
- The People argued that People v Peque announced a new rule and should be applied prospectively only (not to cases on direct appeal when Peque was decided).
- The Appellate Division considered whether Peque announces federal constitutional law requiring advisals about immigration consequences and whether it applies to this case on direct appeal.
- Although the court found Peque applies to cases on direct appeal, it declined to grant relief because Brazil had affirmatively represented he was a U.S. citizen at the plea, and prior proceedings had discussed his immigration status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peque requires trial courts to advise noncitizens of deportation consequences | People: Peque is a new state rule and should be applied prospectively only | Brazil: Peque requires advisals; plea involuntary without advisal | Court: Peque rests on federal constitutional principles and applies to cases on direct appeal |
| Whether Peque applies retroactively to cases on direct appeal | People: Peque is a new rule under Pepper and should not apply here | Brazil: Peque is federal constitutional rule and must apply to direct appeals | Court: Peque is federal constitutional law and applies to direct appeals (Griffith rule) |
| Whether defendant’s plea was involuntary due to lack of deportation advisal | Brazil: Failure to advise about deportation made plea involuntary | People: Defendant misrepresented U.S. citizenship; therefore no prejudice or relief | Court: No relief—defendant affirmatively stated he was a U.S. citizen and prior proceedings discussed immigration status |
| Whether defendant could have reasonably believed he faced deportation | Brazil: Might have mistakenly believed he was a citizen and thus would be unaware of deportation risk | People: Prior bail proceeding discussed immigration status; unlikely mistaken belief | Court: Given prior discussions and representation, mistaken belief unlikely; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168 (2013) (advisal requirement re: immigration consequences at plea)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new rules of federal criminal procedure apply to cases on direct appeal)
- People v Martello, 93 N.Y.2d 645 (1999) (application of federal retroactivity principles in state cases)
- People v Harnett, 16 N.Y.3d 200 (2011) (reliance on federal constitutional principles in plea advisals)
- People v Gravino, 14 N.Y.3d 546 (2010) (federal law foundations for plea advisal requirements)
- People v Pepper, 53 N.Y.2d 213 (1981) (state prospectivity doctrine discussion)