1970s
Kovacs v. U.S., 744 F.3d 44, 50-51 (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 2014) (United States v. Couto, 311 F.3d 179, 188 (2d Cir.2002), holding that an affirmative misrepresentation of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea falls outside this range of professional competence, applies retroactively to this case even though Couto was decided the year after Kovacs' 2001 conviction became final: We have little trouble concluding that, by the time Kovacs' conviction became final, the Couto rule was indicated, and was awaiting an instance in which it would be pronounced. Courts had concluded similar misadvice was objectively unreasonable as far back as the 1970s [footnote omitted]; our decisions reflected this trend long before Kovacs' conviction. See United States v. Santelises, 509 F.2d 703, 704 (2d Cir.1975) (per curiam) (Since [defense counsel] does not aver that he made an affirmative misrepresentation, [petitioner] fails to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.); Michel v. United States, 507 F.2d 461, 465 (2d Cir.1974) (While recognizing that deportation was a serious sanction, this court ... [noted] that there was before it no allegation of misleading by counsel.); see also United States v. Zilberov, 162 F.3d 1149, 1998 WL 634211, at *1 (2d Cir.1998) (unpublished summary order) ([T]rial counsel's alleged warning of possible deportation may have been inaccurate and, arguably, objectively unreasonable.); citing United States v. Briscoe, 432 F.2d 1351, 1353"54 (D.C.Cir.1970); Downs"Morgan v. United States, 765 F.2d 1534, 1538"41 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Nagaro"Garbin, 653 F.Supp. 586, 590 (E.D.Mich.1987); United States v. Corona"Maldonado, 46 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1173 (D.Kan.1999).