Assignment You have asked me to research the Padilla claim to determine whether our client, Piotr Budziszewski, had ineffective assistance of counsel because they failed to let him know that he would face deportation if plead guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell.
Legal Issue
When counsel fails to notify their client of the immigration consequences that would come from pleading guilty, are they guilty of ineffective counsel thus violating the client’s rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?
Facts
Piotr Budziszewski, a Polish man and lawful permanent resident of United States plead guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, an aggravated felony. He was originally charged with two counts of selling narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), and two counts of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a). Budziszewski hired Gerald Klein to be his defense attorney who then proceeded to negotiate the lesser charge as part of a plea agreement. Budziszewski pleads guilty to the lesser charge, which resulted in him being detained. After forty-five days of incarceration, the petitioner was released from custody to federal authorities. Federal authorities then proceeded to detain him and begin proceedings to deport Budziszewski out of the country. This led to the petitioner filing a habeas corpus under the Padilla standard. Analysis Our client Piotr Budziszewski, a legal resident from Poland was charged with two counts of selling narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), and two counts of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a). …show more content…
The charges carried a minimum sentence of five years imprisonment with a maximum term of twenty years, General Statutes § 21a-278 (b). Based on the original counsel of Gerald Klein. Mr. Budziszewski agreed to a plead guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, an aggravated felony. It is because of this plea that our client now faces deportation. Deportable Criminal Offenses For the sake of our case, I will only address the elements and deportable offenses pertaining to this case as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (2). A noncitizen faces the possibility of deportation when they have committed: (A) General crimes (II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, is deportable. (ii) Multiple criminal convictions (iii) Aggravated felony (B) Controlled substances (i) Conviction Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable. Our client Mr. Budziszewski claims that in not being notified of the possible immigration consequences his right to “effective legal counsel” as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, was violated. To determine if Mr. Klein’s counsel was ineffective we’ll be using the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 687 (1984). Ineffective Assistance of Counsel According to the test, ineffective
Legal Issue
When counsel fails to notify their client of the immigration consequences that would come from pleading guilty, are they guilty of ineffective counsel thus violating the client’s rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?
Facts
Piotr Budziszewski, a Polish man and lawful permanent resident of United States plead guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, an aggravated felony. He was originally charged with two counts of selling narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), and two counts of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a). Budziszewski hired Gerald Klein to be his defense attorney who then proceeded to negotiate the lesser charge as part of a plea agreement. Budziszewski pleads guilty to the lesser charge, which resulted in him being detained. After forty-five days of incarceration, the petitioner was released from custody to federal authorities. Federal authorities then proceeded to detain him and begin proceedings to deport Budziszewski out of the country. This led to the petitioner filing a habeas corpus under the Padilla standard. Analysis Our client Piotr Budziszewski, a legal resident from Poland was charged with two counts of selling narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), and two counts of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a). …show more content…
The charges carried a minimum sentence of five years imprisonment with a maximum term of twenty years, General Statutes § 21a-278 (b). Based on the original counsel of Gerald Klein. Mr. Budziszewski agreed to a plead guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, an aggravated felony. It is because of this plea that our client now faces deportation. Deportable Criminal Offenses For the sake of our case, I will only address the elements and deportable offenses pertaining to this case as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (2). A noncitizen faces the possibility of deportation when they have committed: (A) General crimes (II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, is deportable. (ii) Multiple criminal convictions (iii) Aggravated felony (B) Controlled substances (i) Conviction Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable. Our client Mr. Budziszewski claims that in not being notified of the possible immigration consequences his right to “effective legal counsel” as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, was violated. To determine if Mr. Klein’s counsel was ineffective we’ll be using the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 687 (1984). Ineffective Assistance of Counsel According to the test, ineffective