Saksena v. Commissioner of Correction
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 417
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Sharad Saksena, an Indian national, pleaded guilty (Alford pleas) in 2007 to two counts of first‑degree larceny and received a total effective ten‑year sentence (three years to serve, remainder suspended) and $100,000 restitution.
- After release, federal immigration authorities detained Saksena and ordered his removal based on the convictions.
- Saksena filed a habeas petition alleging trial counsel Philip Fazzone was ineffective for failing to advise him about immigration/deportation consequences of the pleas and that the pleas were therefore not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
- The habeas court (T. Santos, J.) denied relief; Saksena appealed and the appellate court granted certification to appeal the habeas denial.
- The court considered federal precedents (Strickland, Hill, Padilla, Chaidez) and Connecticut precedents (Niver, Aquino) bearing on counsel’s duty to advise about deportation and the voluntariness of pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saksena) | Defendant's Argument (State/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise about immigration consequences | Counsel failed to inform Saksena that pleas would result in mandatory removal; under Padilla this advice was required | At the time of the pleas (2007), Connecticut precedent did not require advising on deportation; Padilla is not retroactive under Chaidez | No ineffective assistance; counsel not deficient given controlling law at plea time |
| Whether the guilty pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily because immigration consequences were not explained | Lack of deportation advice rendered pleas involuntary in violation of due process | Under Connecticut law, immigration consequences are collateral and do not vitiate voluntariness; Padilla does not apply retroactively (Chaidez) | Pleas remained knowing/intelligent/voluntary; no due process violation |
| Whether Padilla applies to invalidate pre‑Padilla pleas | Padilla requires accurate specific advice and would void pre‑Padilla deficient advice | Chaidez holds Padilla is not retroactive; pre‑Padilla convictions governed by prior Connecticut precedent (Aquino, Niver) | Padilla inapplicable retroactively; Saksena’s plea predates Padilla |
| Whether habeas court’s proceeding without petitioner present violated rights | Saksena claimed absence at habeas trial violated due process and practice rules | Any error was harmless; petitioner’s claim lacked prejudice | Any absence was harmless error and does not warrant reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (advice about deportation required when consequences are clear)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (Padilla not retroactive)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland applied to guilty pleas; prejudice requires showing would have gone to trial)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (recognizes Alford plea)
- State v. Aquino, 89 Conn. App. 395 (Conn. law: immigration consequences are collateral; failure to advise not deficient)
- Niver v. Commissioner of Correction, 101 Conn. App. 1 (applies Strickland/Hill and Connecticut precedent re: collateral immigration consequences)