Reid v. State of Maine

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 3, 2016
• Docket: CUMcr-15-6240
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. DOCKET NO: CR-15-6240, 16-6241

COREY REID,

Petitioner PCR DECISION AND ORDER v.

STATE OF MAINE,

Respondent.

This matter came before the court for a prehearing conference on a post-

conviction review petition. Verne Paradis, Esquire, represented Mr. Reid

("Reid") and Jen Ackerman, Deputy DA, represented the State of Maine.

A. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND

In CUMCD-CR12-4058, ~etitioner was convicted of one count of theft by

unauthorized taking, Class D, 17-A M.R.S. § 353(1)(B)(5), and in CUMCD-CR-12­

6709, he was convicted of two counts of reckless conduct (with a dangerous

weapon), Class C, § 211(1), 1252(4). The court appointed Robert LeBrasseur to

represent him. Reid pleaded guilty in 2013. The Rule 11 hearing was held on

October 2, 2013 and Sentencing occurred on December 10, 2013.

With regard to the Post-Conviction Review Petition, defendant asserts in

his petition ineffective assistance of counsel on the ground that counsel failed to

inform petitioner of the impact of his convictions on his immigration status. The

parties have stipulated that this question is answered by reference to pages 7, line 18 through 9, line 24. In particular, after the -court inquired whether Reid

was an American citizen, Attorney LeBrasseur stated,

He's not a US citizen, your Honor. We explained to Mr. Reid, that a theft conviction is a crime of moral turpitude which something frowned upon by immigration services, however being his first crime of moral turpitude it does not lead to automatic removal of an individual.

However, that conviction coupled with the convictions for reckless conduct, with a dangerous weapon, do subject him to removal that no representations can be made to what will happen once he is in the immigration process, and how they decide to proceed.

This was followed up by Mr. Reid assuring the court he understood, and with

the court stating, "There are no promises then made with regard to what U.S.

immigration may do and whether they will deport you back to Jamaica." Tr. 9,

lines 8-10.

B. INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

In Manley v. State, 2015 ME 117,

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 669 (1984), is the "seminal case" that

establishes the standards controlling the disposition of claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel. The federal constitutional guarantee of the right to counsel

under the Sixth Amendment extends to the states through the Fourteenth

Amendment, Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1404, 182 L. Ed. 2d 379

(2012), and so the Strickland standards govern ineffectiveness claims in state court

post-conviction proceedings. To prevail in a post-conviction proceeding based

on an alleged constitutional deprivation of counsel, as alleged here, the petitioner

must meet a two prong test: first, "that counsel's representation fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness," and second, that "errors of counsel ...

actually had an adverse effect on the defense." Theriault v. State, 2015 ME 137, CJICJI

13-14 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693). These elements of an ineffective

2 assistance case, when proved, constitute a -"showing that counsel's errors were so

serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable."

Theriault v. State, 2015 ME 137, 1113-14 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). But

when not proved, petitioner has failed to show that he was deprived a fair trial.

In this case, plea counsel discussed with petitioner and disclosed to the

court the petitioner's immigration status and the effect these convictions would

have on his immigration status. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood

that he was not an American citizen and that his convictions for crimes of moral

turpitude would subject him to removal from the U.S. at some time. Under these

circumstances, petitioner cannot and did not prove that trial counsel's

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Since

petitioner could not demonstrate any errors made by trial counsel, he cannot

establish that was that errors of counsel actually had an adverse effect on the

defense. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

Wherefore, the ORDER and ENTRY shall be:

The Petition is DENIED.

DATE: October 3, 2016

Active Retired Justice Maine Superior Court