People v. Carty, 96 A.D.3d 1093

Defendant pled guilty in 2006 to one count of attempted controlled substance sale under a plea agreement, in lieu of four information counts.
Sentenced in July 2007 to one year in jail; no direct appeal following sentencing.
In 2009, after immigration detention, he moved to vacate the judgment under CPL 440.10 claiming the plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent and counsel failed to inform him of immigration consequences.
County Court conducted a hearing; both defendant and counsel testified; court denied the motion.
On appeal, the court affirmed, holding Padilla does not apply to these facts and defendant received meaningful representation; deportation is a collateral consequence not required to be advised by the court; no ineffective assistance established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to inform about deportation consequences was ineffective assistance	Padilla requires advising noncitizens of immigration consequences	Counsel had no reason to know defendant’s citizenship status; no duty to inquire	No; no deficient performance proven under Strickland; no prejudice
Whether Padilla applies retroactively to collateral attacks on a 2007 conviction	Padilla should apply to collateral challenges	Retroactivity undecided; depends on circuits	Not decided; court left open pending broader standards
Whether the deportation consequences were a due process issue regarding plea validity	Failure to inform affects voluntariness of plea	Deportation is collateral; not required to be advised by court	Not a due process defect; plea valid given collateral nature of deportation
Whether defendant received meaningful representation despite lack of citizenship information	Counsel provided deficient representation under Padilla	Counsel acted reasonably given lack of knowledge about citizenship	County Court correctly found meaningful representation under Baldi and related standards

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment counsel duties include immigration consequences; not applicable unless known citizenship)
People v. Gravino, 14 N.Y.3d 546 (2010) (Collateral consequences inquiry; plea validity; de facto due process considerations)
People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (1998) (Fairness of process; meaningful representation standard)
People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137 (1981) (Plea proceedings; when to evaluate voluntariness of plea)
People v. Harnett, 16 N.Y.3d 200 (2011) (Possibility of involuntary plea in ignorance of collateral consequences)
People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242 (2005) (Due process in plea allocations; collateral consequences info)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Plea-based ineffective assistance standard (Strickland))
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (Two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
Ford v. People, 86 N.Y.2d 397 (1995) (Plea considerations; due process)
Catu v. People, (2005) (2005) (Collateral consequences and plea advisement)