Commonwealth v. Chhieng

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a defendant who admitted to sufficient facts was entitled to withdraw those admissions because the plea judge warned only that a conviction could have immigration consequences, without warning that the admissions themselves could do so. The court also held that an additional former rule-based immigration warning did not cure the deficient statutory warning. Because federal immigration authorities had initiated deportation proceedings based on the admissions, the defendant demonstrated an actual prospect of deportation under G. L. c. 278, § 29D.

Holdings

1. The defendant did not receive the warning required by G. L. c. 278, § 29D, because the judge warned only that a conviction could have immigration consequences and failed to advise that an admission to sufficient facts could have those consequences.
2. A warning under former Mass. R. Crim. P. 12 rule (b) is not a substitute for the statutorily required warning under G. L. c. 278, § 29D.
3. The defendant established the actual prospect of deportation because the Federal government had initiated deportation proceedings based on his admissions, even though those proceedings were later dismissed without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant received the immigration warning required by G. L. c. 278, § 29D, when the judge warned only that a conviction could have immigration consequences and did not state that an admission to sufficient facts could have those consequences.
2. Whether an additional immigration warning under former Mass. R. Crim. P. 12 rule (b) remedied the failure to provide the statutory § 29D warning.
3. Whether the defendant demonstrated that he actually faced the prospect of deportation despite the dismissal without prejudice of the deportation proceedings.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded