Noze v. Commissioner of Correction

*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** MACKENZY NOZE v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 39233) Alvord, Sheldon and Mullins, Js.* Syllabus The petitioner, a citizen of Haiti, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him adequately as to the immigration consequences of his plea of guilty to a certain drug related offense that subjected him to mandatory deportation. The petitioner initially was charged with offenses that exposed him to sixty years imprisonment before he pleaded guilty and received a lesser sentence under a plea agreement offered by the state. The habeas court rendered judgment denying the habeas petition and, thereafter, denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the peti- tioner appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal: that court properly determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s allegedly deficient performance, the petitioner having failed to show that, absent counsel’s failure to adequately inform him regarding the immigration consequences of his plea, it was reasonably probable that he would have rejected the plea agreement and insisted on going to trial; moreover, the habeas court’s finding that the petitioner was well aware that his conviction of the initial charges was virtually inevitable and that deportation was realistically unavoidable was not clearly erroneous, as the court was free to credit his trial counsel’s testimony that the petitioner was not concerned about the immigration consequences of the plea and wanted to receive the shortest possible period of incarceration, which he accomplished by accepting the plea agreement, and to reject the petitioner’s testimony that he would have rejected the proposed plea agreement and gone to trial had he been advised adequately. Argued September 11—officially released November 7, 2017 Procedural History Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals