Opinion ID: 4503535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Information as to Likelihood of Deportation

Text: ¶ 15. Petitioner argued in part that his plea was based on a misunderstanding that his chances of deportation were high. The PCR court wrote, “Although he thought the chances were very high that he would be deported, there was still a risk that it would not happen at all or any time soon, and he was aware of that risk and decided to take it.” The court was satisfied that defense counsel had given petitioner “accurate” information as to the risk that petitioner may not be deported. ¶ 16. We are skeptical that the evidence can support such a conclusion. On the record at the change-of-plea hearing, defense counsel stated that petitioner would “most likely” be deported. At the PCR hearing, defense counsel testified that she informed petitioner that government immigration attorneys told her that he would be taken into federal custody and deported after he entered his change of plea and the appeal period lapsed. She also testified that because this represented a change of position from the original information she received—that he would be taken into federal custody at the time of his change of plea—she conveyed to petitioner uncertainty as to whether ICE would follow through with what they had represented. She told petitioner that there was nothing binding the federal authorities.3 ¶ 17. This evidence could support a finding that defense counsel conveyed to petitioner that the timing of his anticipated deportation was unclear. It might even support a finding that she conveyed to petitioner that whether he would be deported was not entirely certain. But there is an 3 Defense counsel also testified regarding an email she sent to the state’s attorneys after sentencing, reflecting that she had learned from ICE that “he will be deported at the end of his minimum, currently 12 years.” She did not testify as to who made this claim, and the record does not reflect that the message was ever passed on to petitioner or to the court. For that reason, it has no probative value as to petitioner’s understanding in entering his plea. 7 expansive gap between defense counsel’s statement on the record at sentencing that petitioner would most likely be deported, and the true (and ascertainable) state of affairs, as found by the PCR court, that given petitioner’s ineligibility for release federal authorities would have no reason to deport him. This misunderstanding alone would likely compromise the voluntariness of petitioner’s guilty plea. See In re Stevens, 144 Vt. 250, 256, 478 A.2d 212, 215 (1984) (explaining that to prove involuntariness, “petitioner must show evidence reasonably justifying his mistaken belief”).