State v. Lima
159 A.3d 651
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Defendant Evandro P. Lima entered an Alford guilty plea to conspiracy to commit third‑degree larceny and was sentenced to one year.
- During the plea canvass the court asked if defendant had discussed the case with counsel; defendant said yes and stated he understood that a conviction could result in removal, exclusion, or denial of naturalization.
- Defendant later moved to vacate the plea under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54‑1j(c), claiming the court failed to ask whether he had spoken with counsel about immigration consequences before accepting the plea.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding § 54‑1j(a) requires the court only to determine the defendant’s understanding of immigration consequences, not to inquire affirmatively whether the defendant had discussed those consequences with counsel.
- The defendant appealed; the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory text requires the court to address the defendant and determine his understanding, but does not mandate a specific inquiry into whether the defendant had consulted counsel when the defendant already acknowledges understanding.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lima's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 54‑1j(a) requires the court to ask if the defendant discussed immigration consequences with counsel before accepting a plea | § 54‑1j(a) requires the court to address defendant and determine understanding; no separate mandatory question about consulting counsel | Statute is ambiguous and should be read to require an express inquiry whether defendant spoke with counsel; otherwise court must allow discussion sua sponte | Court held statute does not require a direct inquiry; asking and obtaining the defendant’s acknowledgment of understanding satisfies § 54‑1j(a) |
| Whether failure to ask that specific question mandates vacatur under § 54‑1j(c) | Vacatur only available if court failed to determine defendant’s understanding as subsection (a) requires | Failure to ask about counsel discussion is a statutory noncompliance warranting vacatur if consequences follow | Vacatur not required where record shows defendant acknowledged understanding; § 54‑1j(c) limited to the express failures in (a) |
| Role of counsel vs. court in advising on immigration consequences | Counsel has duty to advise; court’s role is to ensure defendant understands and allow consultation if needed | Court must ensure the defendant actually consulted counsel or else actively facilitate discussion | Court reaffirmed that Padilla establishes counsel’s duty; statute aims to ensure defendants are warned and may consult counsel, not to shift advisory role to the court |
| Whether Hall or James require different result | State relied on precedent permitting reliance on counsel’s representations and substantial compliance | Lima argued Hall and other materials support reading that court must confirm counsel consultation | Court distinguished Hall and James, endorsing their reasoning that substantial compliance and reliance on counsel’s representations are permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 303 Conn. 527 (Conn. 2012) (upheld substantial compliance with § 54‑1j when counsel represented defendant understood immigration consequences)
- State v. James, 139 Conn. App. 308 (Conn. App. 2012) (held § 54‑1j(a) does not require court to inquire whether defendant consulted counsel)
- State v. Malcolm, 257 Conn. 653 (Conn. 2001) (substantial compliance standard for plea canvass requirements)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise noncitizen defendant of deportation risks from guilty plea)