People v. Lezama

• Decision Date: 07 May 2014
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Walston LEZAMA, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

117 A.D.3d 752

985 N.Y.S.2d 260

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03279

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Walston LEZAMA, appellant.

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

May 7, 2014.

Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Lauren E. Grasso and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), dated April 11, 2012, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered December 2, 1996, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed.

The defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction on the ground that he was denied the right to the effective assistance of counsel, alleging that his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284. The Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant's motion. By decision and order on application dated February 6, 2013, a Justice of this Court granted leave to appeal.

In Chaidez v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 the United States Supreme Court held that the rule set forth in Padilla, that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to provide advice about the risk of deportation arising out of a plea of guilty, does not apply retroactively to persons whose convictions became final before the date Padilla was decided. In People v. Andrews, 108 A.D.3d 727, 970 N.Y.S.2d 226, this Court declined to give broader retroactive effect to the Padilla rule under the New York Constitution and held that, under New York law, the Padilla rule should not be retroactively applied to cases where the convictions became final prior to March 31, 2010, the date Padilla was decided.

Here, the defendant's conviction became final well before the date Padilla was decided and, thus, the rule in Padilla does not apply. Without the benefit of the Padilla rule, the alleged failure of the defendant's attorney to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea does not constitute deficient performance under either the federal or state constitution, since, prior to Padilla, “the failure of couns...