*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** WENDY GEORGES v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 43145) Elgo, Alexander and DiPentima, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, a Haitian national who had been convicted of reckless man- slaughter in the first degree in violation of statute (§ 53a-55 (a) (3)), sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the habeas court improp- erly concluded that he had not established that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in advising him of the immigration consequences of his plea of nolo contendere. The petitioner asserted that his counsel failed to advise him that his plea would result in certain deportation because a conviction pursuant to § 53a-55 (a) (3) constituted a crime of moral turpitude under federal law. The court rendered judgment denying the habeas petition, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner having failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating deficient performance on the part of his trial counsel: contrary to the petitioner’s claim that the crime of which he was convicted was one of moral turpitude that would result in definite deportation, there was no federal or Connecticut authority holding that reckless manslaughter in the first degree consti- tuted a crime of moral turpitude, and, although the petitioner’s deporta- tion was extremely likely as a result his plea, it was not a certainty, as a practice guide that was available to his counsel at the time of the plea advised that crimes of moral turpitude did not render noncitizens removable in every case and that federal law permitted the waiver of that ground for removal; moreover, the petitioner’s testimony that he would not have entered his plea had he known that there was a very real risk of deportation was found to be not credible by the court, which credited trial counsel’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals