Title: In re Calderon

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Calderon (2002-149); 176 Vt. 532; 838 A.2d 109

2003 VT 94

[Filed 29-Oct-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 94

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-149

                              APRIL TERM, 2003

  In re Liko Calderon	               }       APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }       Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }       DOCKET NO. S0125-01 CnC

                                               Trial Judge: Mary Miles Teachout 

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant appeals from a superior court judgment denying his
  motion for post-conviction relief.  He contends the court erred in denying
  the motion because:  (1) in accepting an earlier no-contest plea to several
  misdemeanor counts, the district court failed to substantially comply with
  V.R.Cr.P. 11(c) & (d); and (2) he was misinformed about the deportation
  consequences of his plea.  We affirm. 

       ¶  2.  The record evidence may be summarized as follows.  In May
  1996, defendant - an Ecuadoran national - pled guilty in Chittenden
  District Court to one count of domestic assault and was placed on
  probation.  In August and September of the same year, he was charged with
  four additional counts stemming from separate incidents involving the same
  victim.  The charges included aggravated domestic assault, kidnapping,
  violation of probation, and violation of conditions of release.  In
  November, defendant entered into a written plea agreement with the State. 
  As set forth in the agreement, which was signed by defendant and his
  attorney David Nicholson, the State agreed to drop the aggravated assault
  and kidnapping charges in return for a plea to three counts of misdemeanor
  domestic assault and one count of simple assault.  The State also agreed to
  dismiss the violation of conditions charge and defendant agreed to admit
  the violation of probation.  Based on the plea, the State agreed to
  recommend a sentence of sixteen months to five years with a referral to the
  Intensive Domestic Abuse Program (IDAP).    
   
       ¶  3.  Prior to entering his plea with the State, defendant
  discussed the plea agreement with his attorney Nicholson.  Roberta Pratt,
  his wife and a native English speaker who is fluent in Spanish, was present
  and translated during defendant's meetings with his attorney where the
  terms of the plea agreement were discussed.  At the November change of plea
  hearing, Defendant appeared with his attorney and a court-appointed Spanish
  interpreter.  The deputy state's attorney stated that she had agreed to
  allow defendant to plead to misdemeanors because defendant had a son in the
  United States and a felony conviction would result in deportation.  In
  response to questioning from the court, attorney Nicholson indicated that
  he had reviewed the signed plea agreement with defendant, and that
  defendant had agreed to plead no contest to the amended charges.  The
  prosecutor set forth a detailed factual basis for the plea, and attorney
  Nicholson stated that defendant acknowledged his behavior was inappropriate
  and against the law.  Accordingly, he was sentenced to eighteen months to
  five years to be served in the IDAP program.  Defendant had agreed to
  increase his minimum sentence to eighteen months to accommodate the
  requirements of IDAP.

       ¶  4.  In September 2000, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
  commenced removal proceedings against defendant under the Immigration and
  Nationality Act (INA) on grounds that he had been convicted of an
  aggravated felony.  In January 2001, the immigration judge found that
  defendant's misdemeanor domestic assault convictions were aggravated
  felonies under the INA because they contained an element of physical force
  and involved a sentence of one year or more.  The judge therefore ordered
  that defendant be deported.  Defendant has appealed that ruling. 

       ¶  5.  Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction
  relief in Chittenden District Court, seeking to vacate the three domestic
  assault convictions on the ground that he was not informed of the
  deportation consequences of his plea.  In his amended petition, he claimed
  that his counsel misinformed him of the immigration consequences of his
  plea, and that the district court failed to comply with V.R.Cr.P. 11(c) and
  (d) at the change of plea hearing.  The petition did not challenge
  defendant's earlier domestic assault conviction. 

       ¶  6.  The court held an evidentiary hearing on the PCR petition in
  October 2001.  Defendant testified that he had been concerned about
  deportation but that his attorney had said, "don't worry," he would be okay
  if he pled to misdemeanors.  Attorney Nicholson also testified, stating
  that he had extensive conversations with defendant, which defendant's wife
  translated, about the charges and the plea agreement prior to the change of
  plea hearing, that he informed defendant about the rights he was waiving,
  and that he believed defendant understood the nature of the charges and the
  consequences of the plea.  Concerning deportation, Nicholson testified that
  he had informed defendant a plea to misdemeanors would reduce the chance of
  deportation, but had never guaranteed that defendant would not be subject
  to deportation if he pled to the reduced charges.

       ¶  7.  Following the hearing, the court issued a written decision,
  finding that the credible evidence did not support defendant's claim that
  he was led to believe he could avoid deportation altogether with a plea to
  the reduced charges.  The court also found that defendant was aware of the
  nature of the charges, and that he failed to carry his burden of
  demonstrating that any failure in the Rule 11 colloquy had prejudiced him. 
  In denying a subsequent motion to amend the judgment, the court issued a
  lengthy order, finding that, despite technical omissions, the district
  court had substantially complied with Rule 11 requirements, and that the
  plea was knowing and voluntary.  In this regard, the court noted that,
  although defendant claimed the Rule 11 colloquy was inadequate, he did not
  assert that his plea was involuntary as a result of any of the asserted
  omissions, but rather premised the claim on his failure to understand the
  possible deportation consequences of his plea, a claim the court found
  unsupported.  Thus, the court found no basis to amend its earlier decision. 
  This appeal followed.

       ¶  8.  The findings in a post-conviction relief decision will not be
  disturbed absent clear error, and even when the evidence conflicts, we will
  defer to the superior court in this regard.  In re Quinn, III, __ Vt. __,
  __,