State v. Hall

303 Conn. 527

35 A.3d 237

STATE of Connecticut

v.Osibisa HALL.

No. 18621.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Oct. 26, 2011.Decided Jan. 24, 2012.

Laurie N. Feldman, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Anthony J. Spinella, assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state).

Erin M. Field, for the appellee (defendant).

ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, HARPER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.

VERTEFEUILLE, J.

The issue in the present case is whether, in conducting a plea canvass of the defendant, Osibisa Hall, the trial court substantially complied with General Statutes § 54–1j,¹ which seeks to ensure that defendants understand the potential immigration consequences of their guilty pleas. The state appeals, following our grant of certification, ² from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to vacate and withdraw his guilty pleas to one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a–277 (b) and two counts of violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a–223. On appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion because it failed to address the defendant personally and to determine that he fully understood the potential immigration consequences of his plea pursuant to § 54–1j. We agree with the state, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The following undisputed facts and procedural history are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court. “On May 22, 2007, the defendant pleaded guilty, pursuant to the Alford doctrine,³ to one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and two counts of violation of a protective order. During the plea hearing, the court questioned the defendant as to his understanding of the rights he was waiving, the meaning of his Alford plea and the agreed upon sentence. The court then addressed defense counsel and the following colloquy ensued:

“ ‘The Court: Any immigration issues here, [defense counsel]?

“ ‘[Defense Counsel]: Yes, there are, Your Honor.

“ ‘The Court: Have you talked to [the defendant]?

“ ‘[Defense Counsel]: Yes, I have.

“ ‘The Court: All right. And he understands the possible consequences of his pleas?

“ ‘[Defense Counsel]: Yes.’

“The court then accepted the defendant's pleas and found that they were made voluntarily. The court also made a finding that the defendant ‘has been advised by his counsel of the immigration consequences of his acts.’ The discussion then turned to the start date of the defendant's sentence, and the court asked again about immigration as follows:

“ ‘The Court: Is there an immigration sticker on him?

“ ‘[Defense Counsel]: There is no immigration sticker as [far as] I know of. But I know that—

“ ‘[The Prosecutor]: He's going to be deported. I looked into it when we did the ... [and] we talked and then when we did the [violation of probation] hearing that's what they told us.

“ ‘The Court: All right.’

“After further discussion, the court sentenced the defendant to forty months incarceration.

“On January 13, 2009, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and vacate the judgments of conviction, claiming that the court did not fulfill its obligation pursuant to § 54–1j (a) to address him personally and determine that he understood the immigration consequences of his pleas. On January 27, 2009, the [trial] court denied the defendant's motion, stating, ‘[i]n reading the transcript of the sentence, the issue of immigration was directly addressed to counsel for the defendant in which he indicates he discussed the immigration issues with his client and that the client understood the immigration consequence of his plea[s]. Along in the canvass ... the state brought up the fact that the defendant is going to be deported.” ’ State v. Hall, 120 Conn.App. 489, 490–92, 992 A.2d 343 (2010).

Following the trial court's denial of his motion, the defendant appealed from the trial court's judgments to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that § 54–1j (a) had been satisfied. The Appellate Court agreed with the defendant, concluding that the trial court had failed to comply substantially with the statute when it neglected to personally address the defendant regarding the potential immigration consequences of his pleas. Id., at 494–95, 992 A.2d 343. The Appellate Court therefore reversed the judgments of the trial court and its decision denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas; id., at 497, 992 A.2d 343; the state's certified appeal to this court followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

The state claims on appeal that the Appellate Court improperly reversed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to vacate and withdraw his guilty pleas. The state argues that, pursuant to our rule in State v. Malcolm, 257 Conn. 653, 778 A.2d 134 (2001), substantial compliance with § 54–1j (a) was sufficient and contends that the trial court in the present case substantially complied with the statute. Specifically, the state contends that, although the Appellate Court cited the proper standard for substantial compliance with § 54–1j (a), it in effect required literal compliance with that statute. The defendant responds that the requirements of § 54–1j (a) were not fulfilled in the present case in any way. We agree with the state, and conclude that the trial court substantially complied with the basic tenets of § 54–1j (a).

Before addressing the merits of the state's claim, we set forth our standard of review. “[A guilty] plea, once accepted, may be withdrawn only with the permission of the court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stocking, 131 Conn.App. 81, 86, 26 A.3d 117 (2011). Section 54–1j (c) ⁴ permits the defendant, not later than three years after the acceptance of his guilty plea, to move to withdraw his plea if he can show that the court failed to comply with the requirements of § 54–1j (a). “The burden is always on the defendant to show a plausible reason for the withdrawal of a plea of guilty.... Whether such proof is made is a question for the court in its sound discretion, and a denial of permission to withdraw is reversible only if that discretion has been abused.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carmelo T., 110 Conn.App. 543, 549, 955 A.2d 687, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 950, 960 A.2d 1037 (2008).

We first addressed the issue of substantial compliance with § 54–1j in State v. Malcolm, supra, 257 Conn. 653, 778 A.2d 134. In that case, the trial court failed to mention specifically all three of the immigration and naturalization consequences set forth in § 54–1j (a) during the defendant's plea canvass. We concluded that “it was not necessary for the trial court to read the statute verbatim ... [and, instead] only substantial compliance with the statute [was] required to validate a defendant's guilty plea.” Id., at 662, 778 A.2d 134. In reaching that conclusion, we took note of the rule under which “substantial compliance is required when warning the defendant of the direct consequences of a guilty plea pursuant to Practice Book § 39–19 ⁵ in order to ensure that the plea is voluntary pursuant to Practice Book § 39–20.” ⁶ (Emphasis added.) Id. Therefore, we reasoned that it would be illogical to “require stricter compliance with regard to the collateral consequences of a guilty plea.” (Emphasis added.) Id., at 663, 778 A.2d 134.

Notwithstanding our conclusion in Malcolm, the defendant in the present case claims that an amendment to § 54–1j (a) subsequent to our decision in Malcolm requires us to revisit the substantial compliance standard. Prior to the 2003 amendment; see Public Act 2003, No. 03–81, § 1(a); the statute provided that “[t]he court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere from any defendant in any criminal proceeding unless the court advises him of the following: ‘If you are not a citizen of the United States, you are hereby advised that conviction of the offense for which you have been charged may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization, pursuant to the laws of the United States.’ ” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 54–1j (a). As a result of the amendment, rather than requiring the court to advise the defendant of the potential immigration consequences of his plea, the statute requires the court to “[address] the defendant personally and [determine] that the defendant fully understands [those potential consequences]....” General Statutes § 54–1j (a). That change, the defendant contends, requires the court in all circumstances “to direct its immigration inquiry to the defendant himself, not his attorney....” Although we do not disagree that § 54–1j, as amended, places an additional burden on the court to ascertain the defendant's understanding of the potential consequences of his plea, we do not agree that substantial compliance can be established only if the court addresses the defendant personally.

We find that our reasoning in Malcolm still applies today despite the 2003 statutory amendment, because the purpose of the statute remains the same—to warn a defendant of possible immigration consequences from a guilty plea.⁷ “[ Section] 54–1j, rather than demanding that trial courts instruct defendants on the intricacies of immigration law, seeks only to put defendants on notice that their resident status could be implicated by the plea.” State v. Malcolm, supra, 257 Conn. at 663–64, 778 A.2d 134. Thus, “[a]lthough it would have been better practice for the trial court to have read the statute verbatim, strict compliance was not...