People v. Kazadi
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 325
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Kazadi is a legal permanent resident from the Congo who pleaded guilty to felony possession with intent to distribute marijuana and misdemeanor possession of a schedule V substance.
- The felony had a deferred judgment and sentence; the misdemeanor resulted in judgment and probationary sentence.
- Plea advisement warned about immigration consequences but did not clearly address misdemeanor consequences.
- ICE initiated removal proceedings after Kazadi’s convictions were discovered.
- Kazadi, relying on state and federal law, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not informing him that pleading guilty could trigger presumptive mandatory removal.
- The district court denied his Crim. P. 85(c) and 35(c) motions without a hearing; Kazadi sought relief in the Colorado Court; the supreme court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kazadi’s Crim. P. 35(c) claim regarding misdemeanor plea warrants an evidentiary hearing | Kazadi | People | Yes; remand for a hearing on ineffectiveness (misdemeanor) |
| Whether Padilla/Pozo standards apply to evaluate deficient performance in misdemeanor plea | Kazadi | People | Yes; standard governs deficiency and prejudice for immigration-removal consequences |
| Whether the district court erred in denying the misdemeanor claim without a hearing | Kazadi | People | Yes; error requiring an evidentiary hearing on the misdemeanor claim |
| Whether Kazadi may challenge the felony deferred judgment under Crim. P. 85(c) or related review | Kazadi | People | No; the deferred felony judgment is not reviewable under Crim. P. 85(c) (majority view) |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must inform client of deportation risks when removal is clear and straightforward)
- People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523 (Colo. 1987) (duty to research immigration law for alien defendants; impact on plea decisions)
- People v. Carbajal, 198 P.3d 102 (Colo. 2008) (deferred judgment not a final judgment; limits Crim. P. 35 review until revoked)
- People in Interest of KW.S., 192 P.3d 579 (Colo. 2008) (relied on to discuss postconviction review timing for deferred judgments)
- People v. Manzanares, 85 P.3d 604 (Colo. App. 2003) (postconviction review context for deferred judgments)
- Naranjo v. Johnson, 770 P.2d 784 (Colo. 1989) (Crim. P. 85 broad remedies; finality considerations)
- Hafelfinger v. Dist. Court, 674 P.2d 375 (Colo. 1984) (conviction and judgment concepts; plea considerations)
- Anderson, 703 P.2d 650 (Colo. App. 1985) (Crim. P. 85 review and final judgment discussions)
- Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123 (Colo. 1982) (definition of final judgment for appellate review)
- Feigin v. Alexa Grp., Ltd., 19 P.3d 23 (Colo. 2001) (appealability of certain interlocutory orders)