St. Juste v. Commissioner of Correction
109 A.3d 523
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Petitioner Jean St. Juste pleaded guilty (Alford plea to weapons; guilty plea to second‑degree assault) in 2007 and was sentenced to five years, execution suspended after 18 months, then probation.
- Petitioner later filed a habeas petition alleging trial counsel (Ignal) was ineffective for failing to advise him that a conviction for second‑degree assault would result in certain deportation; he also claimed his plea was not knowing/voluntary due to misunderstanding immigration consequences.
- The habeas court credited trial counsel’s testimony that he discussed immigration consequences and denied relief; the court granted certification to appeal on the immigration‑advice claim.
- Petitioner was deported to Haiti on April 15, 2011; the immigration judge’s order relied on the assault conviction as an aggravated felony crime of violence.
- Respondent argued the appeal is moot because petitioner’s earlier conviction for threatening in the second degree (when he was 18) independently would bar lawful readmission as a crime involving moral turpitude; the record showed the threatening conviction arose from a guilty plea and carried an 11‑month suspended sentence.
- The appellate court examined whether the threatening conviction constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude under federal law and concluded that it does; because that conviction alone would bar lawful reentry, any relief on the assault plea would provide no practical relief, and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not advising petitioner that second‑degree assault would cause automatic deportation (Padilla claim) | St. Juste: Ignal failed to advise that the assault plea would subject him to automatic deportation, so counsel was deficient and prejudice followed. | Commissioner: Padilla does not apply retroactively (Chaidez); even under pre‑Padilla law Ignal’s conduct was not deficient and petitioner has not shown prejudice. | Not reached on merits — appeal dismissed as moot because petitioner’s prior threatening conviction independently bars readmission. |
| Whether petitioner’s appeal remains justiciable after deportation (mootness) | St. Juste: Appeal is not moot because his deportation was based solely on the assault conviction; relief could affect his ability to lawfully reenter. | Commissioner: Prior threatening conviction is a separate, independent ground (crime involving moral turpitude) that would bar readmission regardless of assault conviction, so no practical relief possible. | Court held appeal moot: prior threatening conviction constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude and therefore any relief on the assault claim would not enable lawful reentry. |
| Whether threatening in the second degree (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-62) is a crime involving moral turpitude | St. Juste: Argued it would not necessarily be a bar to readmission under INA exceptions. | Commissioner: The statute requires intentional or reckless threats—conduct that meets the federal definition of moral turpitude. | Court concluded threatening in the second degree involves the requisite culpable mental states (intent/recklessness and a threat) and thus is evidence of a crime involving moral turpitude. |
| Whether statutory exceptions to INA moral‑turpitude bar apply to petitioner | St. Juste: Claimed the age‑and‑timing or petty‑offense exceptions might apply. | Commissioner: Exceptions do not apply: petitioner was 18 at time of offense and was sentenced to an 11‑month suspended term (exceeds six‑month threshold). | Court found the exceptions in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) do not apply, so the threatening conviction remains disqualifying. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise about deportation risk of guilty plea)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (Padilla not retroactive to convictions already final when decided)
- State v. Aquino, 279 Conn. 293 (2006) (deportation during appeal can render challenge to plea moot when record lacks proof plea was sole cause)
- Quiroga v. Commissioner of Correction, 149 Conn. App. 168 (2014) (appeal dismissed as moot where deportation rested on multiple independent grounds)
- Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2001) (categorical approach for determining crimes involving moral turpitude)