People v. Samaroo
| Decision Date | 11 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2019–08798,Ind. No. 10452/14 |
| Citation | 205 A.D.3d 822,165 N.Y.S.3d 898 (Mem) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Rajendra N. SAMAROO, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Roni C. Piplani of counsel; Joseph M. DiPietro on the brief), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry Kron, J.), dated June 27, 2019, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered November 12, 2015, convicting him of criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate the judgment rendered November 12, 2015, on the ground that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his counsel's allegedly erroneous advice regarding the immigration consequences of his plea of guilty; as so modified, the order is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing in accordance herewith and a new determination thereafter of that branch of the defendant's motion.
In May 2015, the defendant, a citizen of Guyana and lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, which is a felony, and criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree, which is a misdemeanor. At sentencing, the defendant's conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree was vacated and the defendant received a conditional discharge on the misdemeanor conviction as a result of the defendant having completed a treatment program which was part of his plea agreement. In 2016, the United States Department of Homeland Security initiated a removal proceeding against the defendant on grounds, inter alia, that the defendant had been convicted in 2013 of unlawful possession of marihuana and that he had been convicted of criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree under the subject indictment.
Thereafter, the defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate the subject judgment of conviction, contending that the Supreme Court failed to advise him that the plea of guilty may result in deportation, and that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's alleged failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. In an order dated June 27, 2019, the court denied the motion without conducting a hearing. The defendant appeals.
A defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel, guaranteed under both the Federal and State Constitutions (see U.S. Const Amend VI ; NY Const, art I, § 6 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ). A defendant is entitled to such effective assistance of counsel before deciding whether to plead guilty (see Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 364, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 ; People v. Facey, 180 A.D.3d 927, 928, 116 N.Y.S.3d 607 ). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Federal Constitution, "the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" ( Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ), and "that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense" ( id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).
In ( Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473 ), the United States Supreme Court held that, due to the unique nature of deportation, criminal defense counsel has a duty to inform defendants whether their pleas of guilty carry a risk of deportation. Thus, "[w]ith regard to the first prong, in the context of a plea of guilty, an attorney's failure to advise a criminal defendant, or affirmative misadvice to the defendant, regarding the clear removal consequences of the plea constitutes deficient performance" ( People v. Lovell, 188 A.D.3d 1255, 1256–1257, 132 N.Y.S.3d 829 ; see Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. at 369, 130 S.Ct. 1473 ; People v. Abdallah, 153 A.D.3d 1424, 1425, 61 N.Y.S.3d 618 ; People v. Picca, 97 A.D.3d 170, 178, 947 N.Y.S.2d 120 ). In such cases, relief will depend upon whether the defendant can demonstrate prejudice as a result thereof (see Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. at 374, 130 S.Ct. 1473 ).
Under the New York Constitution, a defendant must show that he or she was not afforded "meaningful representation" ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d at 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ), which also entails a two-pronged test. The first prong is identical to its federal counterpart (see People v. Galan, 116 A.D.3d 787, 789, 983 N.Y.S.2d 317 ). The second prong contains a "prejudice component [which] focuses on the ‘fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case’ " ( People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 156, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213, quoting People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Alexander
...not have entered a plea of guilty if he had been correctly advised of the deportation consequences of the plea (see People v. Samaroo, 205 A.D.3d 822, 165 N.Y.S.3d 898 ; People v. Roberts, 143 A.D.3d at 845, 38 N.Y.S.3d 618 ). Therefore, the defendant was entitled to a hearing on that branc......
-
Englert v. Hilton
...access with the children from 8:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve through Christmas Day, all day, on alternating years with the mother, and 165 N.Y.S.3d 898 to permit the father's girlfriend to drive the children during pick-ups and drop-offs on the condition that the father is present. In an order ......