LAWYER FAILED TO COUNSEL CLIENT APPROPRIATELY
When his motion to vacate his conviction was denied by the Bronx Count Supreme Court, MM appealed.
And on its review, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that MM wasn’t apprised of the immigration consequences of his plea. And, apparently, when he pleaded guilty to “attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument,” that was a crime of “moral turpitude,” which triggered his mandatory deportation.
While the AD1 thought that the lawyer's work “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” it left the outcome undisturbed because MM failed to show “prejudice.”
Given MM’s testimony that his “top priority” was to stay out of prison, the strength of the People’s case against him, his “strong family ties in his home country of Ecuador,” and the potential sentence he faced if convicted after trial, MM failed to show a “reasonable probability” that he would have proceeded with the trial had he been told of the full consequences of his plea.
And away he goes ….
# # #
DECISION