192 A.D.3d 1397
N.Y. App. Div.2021Background
- Defendant Pedro Marte-Feliz, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived appeal; sentence: six years' incarceration plus two years' PRS.
- Defendant later filed pro se CPL 440.20 motion to set aside sentence; counsel then moved under CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and an uninformed guilty plea.
- Core claim: trial counsel failed to advise defendant of the deportation/immigration consequences of the guilty plea (Padilla claim); defendant speaks limited English and asserted counsel did not privately consult with an interpreter.
- The plea transcript showed an interpreter assisted and the court specifically asked whether defendant understood and had discussed that the conviction may likely result in deportation; defendant affirmed.
- Supreme Court denied the CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing; the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding defendant’s claims were largely self‑serving and contradicted by the record and did not establish Padilla prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Marte‑Feliz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about deportation consequences (Padilla claim) | Court and transcript show defendant was informed and had discussed deportation; no proof counsel failed to advise | Counsel did not advise defendant of mandatory deportation and did not privately consult with an interpreter | Denied: record shows defendant was informed; claim is self‑serving and contradicted by plea colloquy; no Padilla relief established |
| Whether defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent | Plea colloquy, with interpreter, established understanding of consequences including deportation | Plea was not knowing/voluntary because counsel failed to advise re immigration consequences | Denied: colloquy demonstrates defendant’s acknowledgment; voluntariness not undermined |
| Whether a CPL 440.10 hearing was required | No — submissions did not show nonrecord facts material to entitlement to relief; claims contradicted by record | Yes — claimed nonrecord facts (private interpreter meetings, counsel’s advice) were material and warranted an evidentiary hearing | Denied: pleadings were conclusory/self‑serving or contradicted by record, so no hearing required |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about potential affirmative defenses or otherwise perform deficiently in plea negotiation | Counsel negotiated a favorable plea and advocated vigorously; performance not deficient | Counsel failed to advise about affirmative defenses, affecting plea choice | Denied: assertions conclusory and contradicted by record; plea settlement was favorable and counsel’s advocacy adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen client when deportation consequences of a plea are clear)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- People v. Carty, 96 A.D.3d 1093 (3d Dep't 2012) (Padilla analysis applied to New York convictions)
- People v. Oouch, 97 A.D.3d 904 (3d Dep't 2012) (Padilla/Strickland framework and prejudice inquiry)
- People v. Vargas, 173 A.D.3d 1466 (3d Dep't 2019) (hearing on CPL 440.10 required only when nonrecord facts are material and would entitle the defendant to relief)
- People v. Lawrence, 148 A.D.3d 1472 (3d Dep't 2017) (Padilla obligations and counsel’s duty to advise re deportation)
- People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) (counsel not ineffective where plea negotiation yields favorable result and advocacy was adequate)