In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d : S e p te m

be r 2 2 , 2 0 1 4

S 1 4 A0 6 9 0 . ENCARNACION v . THE S TATE.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

Th i s ca s e c o n c e rn s th e a d e q u a c y o f a n a tto rn e y ’s im m ig ra tio n a d v ic e to

a le g a l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t wh o e n te re d a g u ilty p le a to a b urg la ry c ha rg e

. Th e

a tto rn e y a d v i s e d h i s c lie nt th a t h is p le a “ m a y ” ha v e a n im p a c t o n h is

im m ig ra tio n sta tu s. Ho w e v e r, th e S ta te c o n c ed e s a n d we a g re e th a t th e

im m ig ra tio n c o n se q u e n c e s o f th e p le a we re c le a r

– a c o n v ic t i o n fo r b u rg la ry

c o n stitu te s a n a g g ra v a te d fe l o n y a n d will a lm o st c e rta in ly le a d to d e p o rta tio n

p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r th e Im m ig ra tio n a nd Na tio n a lity Ac t (“ INA” ). It fo llo ws th a t

th e a tto rn e y wa s d e fic ie n t wh e n he in c orre c tly a d v ise d h is c lie n t th a t h e “ m a y ”

fa c e d e p o rta tio n a s a

re su lt o f h is p le a

.

P e titio n e r e n te re d a g u ilty p le a to a c h a r g e o f b u rg la ry in th e S u p e rio r

Co u rt of Gwin n e tt Co u n ty o n Au g u st 30

, 2 0 1 2

. He wa s se n te n c e d u n d e r

Ge o rg ia ’s F irst Offe n d e r Ac t, OCGA § 4 2 -8 -6 0

, to six y e a rs in p riso n (to se rv e

o n e y e a r, su sp e n d e d u p o n su c c e ssfu l c o m p le tio n o f p ro b a tio n b o o t c a m p ) a n do rd e re d to p a y re stitu tio n a n d a fin e

. B e fo re p e titio n e r e n te re d h is g u ilty p le a ,

a p p o in te d tria l c o u n se l a d v ise d p e titio ne r th a t a g u ilty p le a to bu rg la ry “ m a y ”

im p a c t p e t itio ne r’s im m ig ra tio n sta tu s, 1 a n d th a t p e titio ne r sh o uld se e k th e

a d v ic e o f a n im m ig ra tio n a tto rn e y

. He a lso in fo rm e d p e titio n e r th a t h e “ c o u ld ”

b e de p o rte d e v e n if h e re c e iv e d first o ffe n de r tre a tm e nt. D u rin g th e p le a

p ro c e e d in g s, th e S ta te a sk e d if p e titio n e r u nd e rsto o d th a t h is g u ilty ple a “ m a y

h a v e a n i mp a c t ” o n his im m ig ra tio n sta tu s a nd th a t h e “ m ay b e d e p o rte d a s a

re su lt o f th is p l e a

. ” P e titio n e r re sp o n d e d a ffirm a tiv e ly

. Ba se d o n th e se fa c ts,

p e titio n e r file d a p e titio n fo r a writ o f h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e Su pe rio r Co u rt o f

Gwin n e tt Co u n ty

, a sse rtin g th a t tria l c o u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e an d th a t

p e titio n e r’s p le a wa s n o t k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu nta rily e n te re d

. In th is re g ard

,

p e titio n e r a v e rre d

, in te r a lia

, th a t h is a tto rn e y in fo rm e d h im th a t a b u rg la ry

c o n v ic tio n “ c ou ld ” re su lt in d e p o rta tio n ; bu t th a t, if h e c o m p le te d h is se n te n c e

a s a first o ffe n d e r, h e “ wo u ld n o t h a v e a c o n v ic tio n fo r b u rg la ry ” ; a nd th a t, o n

1 At that t im e , counsel w as unaware of the f act that a noncitizen who was convicted
of a n a ggrava t e d f

elony was s ubject to m andatory rem oval. Counsel’s advice t o all of his
noncitizen c lients was that a p l ea or conviction f o r any of

f e n se “m a y ” im

pact their
im m igration status. W ith regard to petitioner’s case, counsel e laborated: “I told [ petitioner]
that i t m ight happen, that it was u p to a dif f er e n t c o urt, a dif

f erent judge, and a dif

f erent jurisdiction. That it would not be decided here today and that I could not accurately predict
what they would do in such a case, however, it was possible that he would be deported based upon the plea entered in this case.”

2th e b a sis o f th a t in fo rm a tio n, p e titio n e r p re su m e d h e wo u ld n o t be d e p o rte d a s

lo n g a s h e su c c e ssfu lly c o m p le te d h is first o ffe n d e r se nte n c e

.

Th e h a b e a s c o u rt d e n ie d th e p e titio n, fin d in g th a t it h a d “ n o a u th o rity to

e n fo rc e fe d e ra l la w a n d/o r re q u ire th e fe d e ra l a g e n c y re sp o ns i b le fo r

e n fo rc e m e n t to a c t,” a n d th a t p e titio ne r wa s a d vise d “ a s a c c u ra te ly a s p o ssib le

re g a rd in g a n e g a tiv e im

p a c t o n h is im m ig ra tio n sta tu s, in c lu d in g , b u t n o t lim ite d

to

, p o ssib le de p orta tio n .” Th e c o u rt a d d e d : “ [C] ou nse l pro v id e d p e titio n e r with

c o n siste n t, a c c u ra te a dv ic e a b o u t th e risk p e titio n e r wa s fa c in g

. Th e a d v ic e a n d

in stru c tio n p ro v id e d to p e titio n e r w a s n e ith e r ‘m is-a d v ic e ’ n o r in su ffic ie n t o r

in a d e q u a te .”

P e titio n e r file d a n a

p p lic a tio n fo r a c e rtific a te o f pro ba b le c a u se to a p p e a l

wh ic h th is Co u rt g ra n te d, p o sin g th e fo llo w in g qu e stio n : “Did th e h a b e a s c o urt

p ro p e rly a n a ly z e th e c la im p re se n te d ? ” W e a n s w e r t h is q u e stio n n e ga tiv e ly

,

re v e rse th e h a

b e a s c o u rt, a nd re m a n d with d ire c tio n.

To p re v a il o n a c la im o f in e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e o f c o u n se l, pe titio n e r m u st

sh o w bo th th a t h is c o u n se l’s p e rfo rm a nc e wa s d e fic ie n t, a n d th a t th e d e fic ie n t

p e rfo rm a n c e w a s pre

ju d ic ia l to h is d e fe n se

. S m ith v

. F ra n c is, 2 5 3 Ga

. 7 8 2

, 7 8 3

(1 ) (3 2 5 SE2 d 3 6 2 ) (1 9 85 ) (c itin g S tric k la n d v

. Wa sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U. S

. 6 6 8 (1 0 4

3S Ct 2 05 2

, 80 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 )). With re g ard to im m ig ra tio n c o n se q u e n c e s, th e

Un ite d S ta te s S u pre m e Co u rt h e ld

, in P a d illa v . Ke n tu c k y , 5 5 9 U. S . 3 5 6 (1 3 0

S Ct 1 4 7 3, 1 7 6 LEd 2d 2 84 ) (2 0 10 ), th a t th e Six th Am e n d m e n t’s g u a ra n te e o f

e f fe c tiv e a ssista nc e o f c o u n se l p ro te c ts a c rim in a l d e fe n d a nt fro m e rro n e o u s

a d v ic e a b o u t d e p o rta tio n , id

. a t 3 6 6

, a n d th at a d e fe n d a nt e sta b lish e s

S tric k la n d ’s d e fic ie n t p e rfo rm a n c e p ro n g b y sh o w in g th a t c o u n se l fa ile d to

a c c u ra te ly a d v ise th e d e fe n d a n t wh e n th e im m ig ra tio n c o nse q u e n c e s o f a g u ilty

p le a “ c o uld b e e a sily d e te rm in e d fro m re a d in g th e re m ov a l sta tu te [8 U.S .C. §

1 2 2 7] .” Id

. a t 3 6 8 -3 69

. In th a t c a se , c ou n se l p ro vid e d h is c lie n t w ith th e fa lse

a ssu ra n c e th a t h is g u ilty p le a wo u ld n o t le a d to h is d e p o rta tio n

. T he Su p re m e

Co u rt a c k n o wle d g e d th a t im m ig ra tio n la w c a n b e “ c o m p le x ,” a n d th a t wh e re th e

la w is u n c le a r o r d isc re tio n a ry , it m a y b e su ffic ie n t to a d vise a c lie nt th a t h e

“ m a y ” fa c e d e p o rta tio n

. Th e P a d illa Co u rt e m p h a siz e d

, h o we ve r, th a t wh e re th e

d e p o rta tio n c on se q u e n c e s o f a p le a a re “ tru ly c le a r . .

. th e d u ty to g iv e c o rre c t

a d v ic e is e q u a lly c le a r.” Id

. S e e a lso S m ith v

. S t a te

, 2 8 7 G a

. 3 91 (6 9 7 S E2 d

1 7 7 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (d isc u ssin g sig n ific a n c e o f P a dilla in c a se in v o lv in g th e with d ra wa l

o f a p le a a fte r se n te nc in g).

In c lu d e d in th e INA’s d e fin itio n o f “ a g g ra va te d fe lo ny ” is “ a th e ft o ffe nse

4(in c lu d in g re c e ip t o f sto le n p ro p e rty ) o r b u rg la ry o ffe n se fo r wh ic h th e te rm o f

im p riso n m e n t [is] a t le a st o n e y e a r.” 8 US C § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(G); se e Ja g g e rn a u th

v

. U.S

. A t t ’y G e n ., 4 3 2 F 3 d 1 3 4 6

, 1 3 5 3 (1 1th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) (th e ft o ffe n se is

a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y if p riso n te rm is a t le a st o n e y e ar). Ge org ia ’s b u rg la ry sta tu te

p r o v i d e s th a t a bu rg la ry , wh e th e r in th e first o r se c on d d e gre e , c o n stitu te s a

fe lo ny a n d im

p o se s a se n te n c e o f lo n g e r th a n o ne y e ar fo r a c o nv ic tio n

. OCGA

§ 1 6 -7 -1 (b ), (c ). In de e d

, in th is c a se , pe titio n e r wa s se n te n c e d to a p riso n te rm

o f six y e a rs. Th u s, it is c le a r th a t Ge org ia ’s b u rg la r y s t a tu te m e e ts th e INA’s

d e fin itio n o f “ a g g ra va te d fe lo n y .”

Th e m e re fa c t th a t p e t i t i o n er wa s giv e n first o ffe n de r tre a tm e n t is o f n o

im p o rt, be c a u se fe d e ra l i mmi g ra tio n la w tre a ts a g u ilty p le a to a n a g g ra v a te d

fe lo ny a s a c o n v ic tio n e v e n if th e c o n vic tio n is u ltim a te ly e x p u n g e d

. 8 US C §

1 1 0 1 (a ) (4 8 ) (A) a n d (B); se e Mo n c rie ffe v

. Ho ld e r,

_ _ U. S

.

_ _ ,

_ _ , n .2 (1 3 3

S Ct 1 6 7 8

, 1 8 5 LE2 d 7 2 7 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (a lth o u g h n o n c itiz e n pe titio n e r p le a de d g u ilty

in Ge o rg ia to p o sse ssio n o f m a riju a na w i t h i n t e n t to d istrib u te a n d wa s

se n te nc e d a s a first-tim e o ffe n d e r, p a rtie s a g re e d p e titio n e r’s c a se wa s a

“ c o n v ic tio n ” a s d e fin e d b y th e INA). S e e a lso Re se n diz -Alc ara z v. U.S

. Att’y

Ge n ., 3 83 F 3 d 1 2 6 2

, 1 26 7 (1 1 th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( u ph old in g Bo a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n

5Ap p e a ls’ ru lin g th a t INA’s d e fin itio n o f “ c o n v ic tio n ” in c lu d e s sta te c o n v ic tio n s

e x p u n g e d u nd e r a re h a

b ilita tiv e sta tu te ); Un ite d Sta te s v

. Ch risto p h e r, 2 3 9 F 3 d

1 1 9 1, 11 9 3 (1 1 th Cir. 2 0 0 1 ) (th e f t o ffe n se is a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y if “ te rm o f

im p riso n m e n t is a t le a st o n e y e a r” re g a rd le ss o f w h e th e r se n t e n c e wa s

su sp e n d e d ). Th u s, b y p le a din g g u ilty to b u rg la ry , p e titio n e r wa s c o n v ic te d o f

a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y e v e n th o u g h h e wa s g iv e n first o ffe n d e r tre a tm e n t.

Th e INA p ro vid e s th a t “ [a ] ny a lie n wh o is c o n vic te d o f an a g g ra v a te d

fe lo ny a t a ny tim e a fte r a d m issio n is d e po rta b le ,” 8 US C § 12 27 (a ) (2 ) (A) (iii),

a n d d e fin e s “ d e p o rta b le ” to m e a n th a t th e a lie n is su b je c t to m a n d a to ry , ra th e r

th a n d isc re tio n a ry , re m o v a l. 8 US C § 1 22 7 (a ). S e e a lso Al-Ba re h v

. Ch e rto ff,

5 5 2 F S u p p 2 d 7 9 4

, 7 9 6 (N.D. Ill. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ An a lie n wh o is c o n v ic te d o f a n

a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y is c o n sid e re d to b e a ‘d e p o rta ble a lie n ’ a n d ‘sh a ll, u p o n th e

o rd e r o f th e Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, b e re m o v e d .’” ). Th us, th e a p p lic a b le fe d e ra l

sta tu t e s m a k e it c le a r th a t a c o n v ic tio n fo r a n a g gra va te d fe lo n y a u to m a tic a lly

trig g e rs th e re m o v a l c o n se q u e n c e a n d a lm o st a lwa y s le a d s to d e po rta tio n

. S e e

Mo n c rie ffe v. Ho ld e r, su pra

. Th a t is b e c a u se , u n lik e c o nv ic tio n s fo r le sse r

c rim e s, wh e n a n o nc itiz e n is c o n v ic te d of a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y , h e is in e lig ib le

6fo r m o st sta tu to ry fo rm s o f d isc re tio n a ry re lie f. 2 Id

. a t 1 6 8 2

. S e e a lso Da n

Ke sse lb re n n e r & Lo ry Ro se n b e rg , Im m ig ra tio n La w an d Crim e s § 7 :2 2 (2 0 1 3

e d .) (“ Ag g ra v a te d fe lo n ie s

. . . d isq u a lify th e n o n c itiz e n fro m m o st w a iv e rs a n d

fo rm s of re lie f fro m re m ov a l, a n d re su lt in g re a tly re d u c e d p ro c e d ura l rig h ts in

d e te n tio n a n d re m ov a l p ro c e e d in g s” ).

We re c o g n iz e th at

, ex c e p t fo r d e a th a n d ta xe s, o n e h u n dre d p e rc e n t

c e r t a i n ty d o e s no t e x ist in th is wo rld a n d o n e c a n a lwa y s im a g in e e x c e p tio n a l

c i r c u ms t a n c e s in wh ic h

, d e sp ite th e c le ar m an d a te o f 8 U S C § 1 2 2 7 (a ), so m e

n o n c itiz e n s c o n v ic te d o f a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y m ig h t a v o id re m ov a l. Ho we ve r,

a s we u n d e rsta n d fe d e ra l im m ig ra tio n la w , th o se c irc um sta n c e s a re

e x c e p tio n a lly ra re

.

An a tto rn e y ’s a d v ic e a s to th e lik e lih o o d o f de p o rta tio n m u st b e b a se d o n

re a listi c p r o b a b ilitie s, n o t fa n c ifu l p o ssib ilitie s. Th u s, w e fin d th a t wh e re , a s

2 See Cesar C uauhtem oc Ga r c i a Hernandez, Crim inal Def ense Af ter Padilla v. K e n t u c ky

, 26 Geo. Im m igr. L.J. 475, 509 (2012) (discussing inapplicability of f orm s of

rem oval relief in c onducting a Padilla analy sis). However, there is a statutory e xception f or

som eone like petitioner who has been sentenced to a prison term of at least f ive y ears f

o r an aggravated f

elony : the A ttorney General h as no discretion to deny relief to a noncitizen who
establishes eligibility under the Con vention A gainst Torture and Other Cruel, Inhum an or Degrading Treatm e nt of Punishm ent (CAT), Art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, S. T reaty Doc. No. 100- 20, p. 20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; 8 CFR § 1208.17 (a) (2012). See Moncrief f e v. Holder, supra
at f n. 1. This exception is n ot relevant here becau s e t h e r e i s n o reason to think that
Encarnacion has a viable claim f o r relief under this statute.

7h e re , th e la w is c le a r th a t d e p o rta tio n is m a n d a to ry a n d sta tu to ry d isc re tio n a ry

re lie f is un a v a ilable

, a n a tto rn e y h a s a d u ty to a c c u ra te ly a d v ise h is c lie n t o f th a t

fa c t. P a d i l l a v

. Ke n tu c k y , su p ra

. It is n ot e n o u g h to sa y “ m a yb e ” wh e n th e

c o rre c t a d v ic e is “ a lm o st c e rta in ly will.” H e rn a n d e z v

. S ta te

, 6 1 S o

. 3 d 1 1 4 4

,

1 1 5 1 (F la

. 3 dDCA 1 9 9 2 ), a ff’d

, 12 4 So

. 3 d 75 7 (F la

. 2 0 1 2 )

. S e e a lso Un ite d

S ta te s v

. Uria s-Ma rru fo

, 74 4 F3 d 3 6 1

, 3 69 (5 th Cir. 2 0 14 ) (b e c a u se it is

c o u n se l’s d u ty to wa rn n o n c itiz e n d e fe n d a n t o f c l ea r ly d e fin e d im m ig ra tio n

c o n se q u e n c e s, it is irre le v a n t th a t m a gistra te ju d ge a sk e d wh e th e r d ef e n d a n t

u n d e rsto o d th e re mig h t b e imm ig ra tio n c o n se q ue n c e s a n d th a t d e fe n da n t a n d

c o u n se l d isc u sse d po ssib le a d v e rse c o nse q u e n c e s o f p le a d in g g u il t y ); Un ite d

S ta te s v. Ra m iro

, 5 4 8 Fe d

. Ap p x

. 4 5 8 (9 th Cir. 2 0 1 3 ) (wh e r e i mm ig ra tio n la w

d e m a n de d d e p o rta t i o n , a tto rn e y m isle d d e fe nd an t wh e n h e a dv ise d h im th a t

im m ig ra tio n ju d g e wo u ld de c id e wh e th e r to de p o rt h im a n d th a t lo we r se n te n c e

m ig h t im p ro v e h is c h a n c e s to a v o i d d e p o rta tio n ); Eb ra him v

. Le Co n e y , 2 0 1 2

U.S

. D ist. LEXIS 1 7 5 4 3 2 (W.D.N.Y. 2 0 1 2) (wh e re a lie n wa s c o n v ic te d o f

a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y th e d e po rta tio n c o n s e q u e n c e s we re c le a r a n d c o u n se l’s a d v ic e

th a t a lie n m e re ly h a d a risk o f b e in g d e p orte d wo u ld n o t su ffic e u n de r P a d illa );

U n ite d S ta te s v

. Ro d rig ue z , 2 0 1 2 U.S

. Dist. LEXIS 1 6 7 1 3 1 (D.Ma ss. 2 0 1 2 )

(wh e re d e po rta tio n wa s v irtu a lly c e rta in c o nse q u e n c e of g u ilty p l e a , a tto rn e y

8re n d e re d in e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e b y su g g e stin g th a t p le a wa s d e fe n d a nt’s b e st

c h a n c e to fig h t d e p o rta tio n ).

In lig ht o f En c a r n a c i o n ’s c o n v ic tio n fo r a n a gg ra v a te d fe lo n y , d e fe nse

c o u n se l h a d n o re a so n to b e lie v e th e re wa s a re a listic p ro b a b ility th a t h is c lie n t

wo u ld e sc a

p e d e po rta tio n

. It fo llo ws th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l p e rfo rm e d d e fic ie n tly

b y fa ilin g to a d v ise p e titio n e r th a t h e wo uld be d e p orte d a s a re su lt o f h is g u ilty

p le a a nd p e titio n e r m e t h is b u rd e n of p r o v i n g t he first Stric k la n d p ro n g

. We

,

th e re fo re , re v e rse th e h a b e a s c o u rt’s o rd e r to t h e e x te n t it fo u n d d e fe nse

c o u n se l’s p e rfo rm a

n c e wa s n o t d e fic ie n t.

In lig h t of th e fo re g oin g , we re m a n d th is c a se to th e h a b e a s c o u rt to

c o n sid e r th e se c o n d p ro n g of p e titio n e r’s in e ffe c tiv e a ssista nc e c la im : wh e th e r

p e titio n e r’s c ou n se l’s d e fic ie n t p e rfo rm a n c e pre ju d ic e d h is d e fe n se

. To sa tisfy

th is p ro n g in th e g uilty p le a c o n te x t, p e titio n e r m u st “ sh o w th a t th e re is a

re a so na b le p ro b a b ility th a t, b u t fo r c o un se l’s e rro rs, h e wo u ld n o t h a v e p le a d e d

g u ilty a nd wo u ld h a ve in siste d o n g o in g to tria l.” S m ith v

. Sta te

, su p ra , 2 8 7 Ga

.

a t 3 9 6 (2 ) (b ) (c itin g Hill v

. L o c k h a rt, 4 7 4 U. S

. 5 2

, 5 9 (1 0 6 S Ct 3 6 6

, 8 8 LEd 2 d

2 0 3 ) (1 98 5 )).

Ju d g m e n t re v e rse d a nd c a se re m an d e d wi t h d i r e c tio n

. All th e Ju stic e s

c o n c u r.

9