People v. Candel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Candel

2017 NY Slip Op 5680, 152 A.D.3d 435, 55 N.Y.S.3d 654

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 13, 2017

Docket207/08

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5680 (People v. Candel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Candel, 2017 NY Slip Op 5680, 152 A.D.3d 435, 55 N.Y.S.3d 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about May 22, 2015, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered July 30, 2008, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant alleged in support of his CPL 440.10 motion that counsel at his plea affirmatively misadvised him (see generally People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 111 [2003]) that he “could” be *436 deported, but “maybe” could avoid deportation if he stayed out of further trouble. However, since defendant pleaded guilty to an aggravated felony under federal law, deportation was mandatory irrespective of subsequent good behavior (see People v Corporan, 135 AD3d 485 [1st Dept 2016]). Defendant also alleged that, although he was innocent, he accepted what he thought was a favorable plea because it involved a sentence of probation, whereas, had he known that deportation was mandatory, he would have asked counsel to negotiate a disposition with less onerous deportation consequences or would have proceeded to trial, in light of the fact that he has family here.

Defendant raised sufficient questions of fact concerning the effectiveness of counsel’s assistance to warrant a hearing on the content of counsel’s immigration advice, and whether defendant was prejudiced (see id.).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Webber, Kahn and Kern, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about May 22, 2015, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered July 30, 2008, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant alleged in support of his CPL 440.10 motion that counsel at his plea affirmatively misadvised him (see generally People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 111 [2003]) that he “could” be *436 deported, but “maybe” could avoid deportation if he stayed out of further trouble. However, since defendant pleaded guilty to an aggravated felony under federal law, deportation was mandatory irrespective of subsequent good behavior (see People v Corporan, 135 AD3d 485 [1st Dept 2016]). Defendant also alleged that, although he was innocent, he accepted what he thought was a favorable plea because it involved a sentence of probation, whereas, had he known that deportation was mandatory, he would have asked counsel to negotiate a disposition with less onerous deportation consequences or would have proceeded to trial, in light of the fact that he has family here.

Defendant raised sufficient questions of fact concerning the effectiveness of counsel’s assistance to warrant a hearing on the content of counsel’s immigration advice, and whether defendant was prejudiced (see id.).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Webber, Kahn and Kern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5680, 152 A.D.3d 435, 55 N.Y.S.3d 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-candel-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack