People v. Doumbia
60 N.Y.S.3d 157
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree (an aggravated felony for immigration purposes) and was sentenced to two years (held in abeyance). The conviction was appealed.
- The plea colloquy and record include counsel’s statement to the court that the defendant “could be deported.”
- The majority concluded the record shows defense counsel failed to advise the noncitizen client that pleading to an aggravated felony would result in mandatory deportation.
- The majority held this was ineffective assistance under Padilla and remanded to allow the defendant to move to vacate the plea under the Peque standard (reasonable probability he would not have pled if properly advised).
- The dissent argued the claim is unreviewable on direct appeal and a CPL 440.10 motion is required to develop the record about counsel’s off‑record advice and strategy (e.g., possible youthful offender relief, CAT relief, or withholding of removal).
- The dissent emphasized that, given the defendant’s unique circumstances and potential avenues to avoid removal, counsel’s statement that the defendant “could be deported” was not necessarily incorrect and the immigration consequences were not “truly clear.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise that plea would cause mandatory deportation | Counsel’s vague warning that defendant “could be deported” was constitutionally deficient because deportation from an aggravated felony is mandatory and required clear advice | Counsel reasonably warned of deportation risk and may have been pursuing strategies (youthful offender, CAT, withholding) or awaiting immigration counsel; record is incomplete | Majority: Ineffective assistance shown on existing record; counsel had duty to give clear advice and defendant may move to vacate plea. Dissent: Claim unreviewable on direct appeal; remand/CPL 440.10 needed |
| Whether a defendant can raise ineffective‑assistance immigration claims on direct appeal without an evidentiary motion | Plaintiff: Where the record plainly shows counsel misstated/failed to advise mandatory deportation, direct appeal suffices | Defendant: When off‑record strategy/advice may explain counsel’s statement, an evidentiary CPL 440.10 motion is required | Majority: Direct appeal sufficient here because record establishes deficient advice. Dissent: Requires CPL 440.10 to develop facts before relief |
| Standard for prejudice when plea counsel misadvises about deportation | Defendant: Must show a reasonable probability he would not have pled if correctly advised (Peque/Strickland standard) | N/A | Court applies Peque standard and remits for Peque remedy (opportunity to move to vacate) |
| Whether counsel may permissibly advise only that deportation is a risk when deportation may be avoidable | Plaintiff: If deportation consequence is “truly clear,” counsel must give correct, specific advice — mere risk language is insufficient | Defendant: Given possible reliefs and unique facts, counsel’s risk language was not incorrect and might reflect strategy | Majority: If law makes deportation mandatory, counsel must advise clearly; uncertain potential reliefs do not justify vague advice. Dissent: Potential reliefs here rendered consequences not truly clear |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must give correct advice about clear deportation consequences of a plea)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168 (2013) (procedure/remedy when ineffective assistance affected guilty plea; reasonable‑probability standard for vacatur)
- People v. Corporan, 135 A.D.3d 485 (1st Dept. 2016) (guilty plea to aggravated felony triggered mandatory deportation; counsel misadvice warranted relief)