People v. Loaiza, 158 A.D.3d 775

Defendant Aldeberto Loaiza, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty in 2003 to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (cocaine); judgment entered January 2004.
A timely notice of appeal was filed but was dismissed as abandoned in early 2005; the dismissal was vacated in 2013 and the appeal reinstated.
Because the conviction was not yet final, the defendant was permitted on direct appeal to raise an ineffective-assistance claim under Padilla v. Kentucky.
At the plea proceeding, defense counsel — aware of the defendant’s noncitizen status — told the defendant that pleading guilty "may affect his [immigration] status."
The court found that advice was incorrect as a categorical deportation consequence applied to the defendant’s felony drug conviction, and counsel therefore provided deficient immigration-related advice.
The remittal court found, based on the record and the defendant’s testimony, a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s erroneous advice the defendant would have gone to trial rather than plead guilty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether noncitizen defendant may raise Padilla-based ineffective assistance on direct appeal when conviction not final	People argued appeal was procedurally proper after reinstatement	Loaiza argued he could raise ineffective assistance under Padilla because conviction not final	Court: Yes; under the unusual procedural history, defendant may raise Padilla claim on direct appeal
Whether counsel’s immigration advice was deficient under Padilla	People contended counsel’s warning (may affect status) was adequate	Loaiza argued counsel’s “may affect” statement was erroneous given mandatory deportation for his offense	Court: Counsel’s advice was deficient; it should have been accurate and specific because deportation consequences were clear
Whether defendant established prejudice (Hill standard) to vacate plea	People argued insufficient proof defendant would have gone to trial	Loaiza argued he would likely have insisted on trial but for the erroneous advice	Court: Remittal court’s credibility findings supported that there was a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial; plea vacated
Remedy: Vacatur of guilty plea and further proceedings	People likely argued conviction should stand	Loaiza sought vacatur and remand for further proceedings	Court: Judgment reversed; guilty plea vacated; case remitted for further proceedings

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (counsel must give correct advice about deportation consequences when clear)
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (limits on retroactivity of Padilla)
People v. Varenga, 26 N.Y.3d 529 (N.Y. 2015) (Padilla principles applied in New York)
People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168 (N.Y. 2013) (categorical deportation for certain drug offenses)
People v. Hernandez, 22 N.Y.3d 972 (N.Y. 2014) (prejudice standard for plea withdrawal; quoting Hill)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (standard for prejudice in plea counsel errors)
People v. Doumbia, 153 A.D.3d 1139 (2d Dep’t 2017) (Padilla duty where immigration consequence is clear)
People v. Corporan, 135 A.D.3d 485 (1st Dep’t 2016) (counsel’s duty to advise when deportation consequence clear)
People v. Elting, 18 A.D.3d 770 (3d Dep’t 2005) (deference to court credibility findings)