People v. Guzman-Caba

• Citation: 178 N.Y.S.3d 435 (Mem)
• Decision Date: 15 December 2022
• Docket Number: 16903,SCI No. 348N/14,Case No. 2015–2126
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alberto GUZMAN–CABA, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

178 N.Y.S.3d 435 (Mem)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Alberto GUZMAN–CABA, Defendant–Appellant.

16903
SCI No. 348N/14
Case No. 2015–2126

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Entered December 15, 2022

Labe M. Richman, New York, for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Faith DiTrolio of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Shulman, Rodriguez, Higgitt, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard M. Weinberg, J.), rendered April 30, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to five years' probation, and order, same court (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), entered on or about March 30, 2021, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction based on Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), which held that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. In support of the motion, defendant submitted an affidavit from plea counsel indicating no recollection or notation that he discussed immigration consequences with defendant, which suggests that counsel's performance was deficient. While the question of whether a defendant was prejudiced by defendant's counsel failure to inform him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea is generally to be determined by a hearing (see People v. Lantigua, 184 A.D.3d 80, 123 N.Y.S.3d 95 [1st Dept. 2020], appeal withdrawn 37 N.Y.3d 953, 147 N.Y.S.3d 550, 170 N.E.3d 424 [2021] ; People v. Martinez, 180 A.D.3d 190, 117 N.Y.S.3d 199 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 972, 125 N.Y.S.3d 6, 148 N.E.3d 470 [2020] ), under the unique circumstances of this case, we find no reasonable possibility that defendant could make the requisite showing of prejudice at a hearing. Defendant was already subject to mandatory deportation as the result of another conviction for an aggravated felony. Thus, regardless of whether defendant pleaded guilty in 2014 to the aggravated felony...