From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PEOPLE v. HYUN CHUL NHO

Supreme Court, Queens County
Dec 1, 1987
137 Misc. 2d 978 (N.Y. Misc. 1987)

Opinion

December 1, 1987

Caesar D. Cirigliano and Laurie Peterson for defendant.

John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Mitchell R. Miller of counsel), for plaintiff.

Nina Rao Cameron, Special Counsel.


Defendant's motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20 for ineffective assistance of prior counsel is granted.

Defendant's plea on May 7, 1985 to the D felony of attempted burglary in the second degree was entered with the understanding the court would recommend against his deportation at the time of sentence on May 29, 1985. That recommendation was made, but was disregarded by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service because of lack of notice pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (b) to the United States Attorney General of defendant's request. Deportation proceedings were commenced in view of defendant's conviction and his noncitizen status. Prior counsel's failure to give that statutory notice and afford the Attorney General an opportunity to be heard at the time of sentencing deprived the defendant of a fundamental and constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel with regard to the scope of punishment he faced upon entry of his guilty plea. (Janvier v United States, 793 F.2d 449 [2d Cir 1986].)

Deportation is a severe punishment, neither envisioned or intended here by the court and counsel for both sides, nor expected by the defendant. The sentence imposed on this defendant under these circumstances is deemed a nullity and defendant must be sentenced ab initio with proper notice to be given to the Attorney General so that opposition to defendant's request for a recommendation against deportation may be presented to the court for its consideration prior to decision thereon.

The People have not opposed the motion, having previously consented to the court's making the recommendation against deportation. However, the People insist that, upon sentencing, defendant be given the same sentence as before. This the court will do, with the proviso that upon imposing the sentence, the court will indicate that defendant has already served the indeterminate sentence previously imposed of 1 to 3 years and the sentence will therefore be commuted to time served. All parties are to appear for sentencing on January 15, 1988.


Summaries of

PEOPLE v. HYUN CHUL NHO

Supreme Court, Queens County
Dec 1, 1987
137 Misc. 2d 978 (N.Y. Misc. 1987)
Case details for

PEOPLE v. HYUN CHUL NHO

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. HYUN CHUL NHO, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Queens County

Date published: Dec 1, 1987

Citations

137 Misc. 2d 978 (N.Y. Misc. 1987)
523 N.Y.S.2d 368

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Sanchez-Guzman

A number of States, historically ahead of the federal judiciary in looking to collateral consequences, have…

State v. Cheung

Where an attorney obtains a promise that the court will recommend against deportation and such promise…