Placide v. Commissioner of Correction
143 A.3d 1174
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Petitioner Eddy Placide, a legal permanent resident born in Haiti, pleaded guilty (Nov 13, 2013) to second‑degree assault and third‑degree assault in Connecticut and received a three‑year sentence (execution suspended) and two years probation.
- Two days after sentencing he was arrested again; immigration authorities thereafter detained him and initiated removal proceedings based solely on the second‑degree assault conviction; he was removed to Haiti in May 2015.
- Placide filed an amended habeas petition alleging (1) his guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he did not understand the risk of deportation, and (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate his immigration status and properly advise him of immigration consequences.
- At the habeas trial, counsel testified she asked Placide whether he was a U.S. citizen and he said yes; she nonetheless warned him, "in an abundance of caution," that noncitizens could face deportation. The plea court also warned about possible deportation during the plea canvass.
- The habeas court found counsel credible, concluded counsel’s performance was not deficient, and found Placide not credible — concluding his deportation resulted from his lack of candor, not counsel’s deficient performance. The habeas petition was denied; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Placide's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Placide’s guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (due process) because he misunderstood deportation risk | Placide: believed he was a U.S. citizen or that LPR status was equivalent, so plea was not knowing re: immigration consequences | Respondent: plea was properly canvassed; court and counsel warned about deportation; Placide’s misstatements caused his risk | Court: Pleas were knowing/voluntary; due process claim fails (tied to ineffective assistance finding) |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate immigration status and advise accurately of deportation risk | Placide: counsel unreasonably relied on his assertion of citizenship despite arrest report showing Haitian birth; better investigation would have prevented deportation | Respondent: counsel reasonably relied on client’s statements, warned of deportation ‘‘in abundance of caution,’’ and performance met objective standard | Court: Counsel’s performance was reasonable under Strickland; performance prong not met, claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (modified prejudice standard for habeas claims arising from guilty pleas)
- State v. Aquino, 279 Conn. 293 (mootness / showing that conviction was sole basis for deportation)
- St. Juste v. Commissioner of Correction, 155 Conn. App. 164 (discussion of crimes of moral turpitude and immigration consequences)
- Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (court may resolve ineffective assistance on either performance or prejudice prong)