People v. Ricketts-SimpsonPeople v. Ricketts-Simpson
Defendant, a native of Jamaica with permanent residence status in the United States, pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree and was sentenced to 10 years of probation. More than а decade later, after deportation proceedings were initiated against her based upon her rape conviction, defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuаnt to
County Court properly denied a hearing on that aspect of defendant‘s motion concerning counsel‘s failure to inquire into her competency and mental health issues. In support of her claim that counsel was deficient in that regard, defendant submitted a psychological evaluation performed more than a decade after she entered the plea, in which a psychologist expressed her belief thаt defendant was not “fully able to meaningfully understand the consequences of her plea bargain” beсause she suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. It is undisputed, however, that defendant had not yet been diagnosed at the time of the plea, and she does not claim that she disclosed her allegеd mental health problems to counsel at any time prior thereto. Nor is there anything in the record tо suggest that defendant‘s ability to understand the proceedings was impaired or that defense counsel shоuld have had any doubts concerning her capacity to enter a knowing and voluntary plea. To the contrary, the plea minutes confirm that defendant actively participated in the colloquy, affirmatively acknowledged that she understood the nature of her rights and the consequences of her plea, answered the court‘s questions intelligently and demonstrated a clear and coherent reсollection of the events surrounding the crime to which she was pleading. Under these circumstances, сounsel‘s failure to
Defendant‘s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise her of the deportation consequences of her plea is grounded upon the rule еnunciated in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356, 368-369 [2010]), which was decided after defendant‘s conviction became final and has no retroаctive application to this appeal (see Chaidez v United States, 568 US —, —, 133 S Ct 1103, 1105 [2013]; People v Baret, 23 NY3d 777, 782 [2014], cert denied 574 US —, 135 S Ct 961 [2015]). However, defendant‘s distinct claim that counsel affirmatively misinformed her about the plea‘s deportation consequenсes is not dependent upon Padilla; rather, it rests upon established law at the time of her plea that defense counsel‘s affirmative misrepresentation to a noncitizen regarding the deportation consequences of a contemplated guilty plea constitutes deficient performance so as to satisfy the first prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim (see People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 111 [2003]; People v Llibre, 125 AD3d 422, 423 [2015], lv granted 24 NY3d 1121 [2015]; People v Melo-Cordero, 123 AD3d 595, 595 [2014]; People v Diallo, 113 AD3d 199, 201 n 2 [2013]; People v Glasgow, 95 AD3d 1367, 1368 n 2 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1061 [2013]).1
In her affidavit in support of the motion, defendant alleged that her counsel advised her that, although immigration authorities wоuld be notified about her guilty plea, “he did not think anything further would happen.” In fact, the crime of rape in thе third degree constitutes an “aggravated felony” that results in mandatory deportation (see
McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Albany County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court‘s decision.