By,Koby Polaski, Associate Attorney
&
Amber Blasingame, Case Manager
Padilla v. Kentucky
In an exciting, recent decision, the United States Supreme Court dramatically increased the rights of noncitizen-criminal defendants to obtain accurate immigration advice. On March 31, 2010, The Supreme Court declared that criminal defense attorneys have a duty to advise their noncitizen clients of the immigration consequences stemming from a criminal plea.
The petitioner, Jose Padilla, is a long-time lawful permanent resident of the United States who raised his family here and served our country honorably in the Vietnam War. After accruing more than forty years as a permanent resident, Mr. Padilla pled guilty to a marijuana-related offense. Mr. Padilla was represented by a criminal defense attorney who incorrectly assured him that his conviction would not result in deportation. In what was surely a tragic shock to the Padilla family, Mr. Padilla was deported from the country he has called home for decades.
The Supreme Court, however, granted some relief. In a commendable holding, the Court appropriately compared deportation to banishment or exile and declared unacceptable the utterly incorrect advice of Mr. Padilla’s attorney. Indeed, for noncitizens, feared deportation comes with a multitude of emotional, financial, health and safety concerns – all of which invoke greater anxiety than a jail sentence. A citizen in criminal proceedings may lose her liberty, but a noncitizen could lose his life, liberty and happiness – his home, his family – and in Mr. Padilla’s case – a life he has known for over forty years. The Court held that in cases like Mr. Padilla’s – where the adverse immigration consequences of a guilty plea are clear – “the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.”
Although obvious in Mr. Padilla’s case, as a general rule, immigration law and its effect on criminal convictions and criminal conduct is extraordinarily complex. The intricacies are enough to make even the most seasoned attorney’s head spin. In Padilla, the Court examined the law’s density by outlining the extensive history of immigration consequences in criminal proceedings. Highlighting its evolution, the Court explained how immigration law now includes a large class of deportable offenses. Immigration judges also enjoy increased discretion to determine the consequences of a criminal offense.
The expansive “class of deportable offenses” has resulted in a greater majority of noncitizens facing removal based on minor crimes committed decades earlier. Although the law has changed, the consequences remain severe.
In light of this discussion, it is no wonder that our firm has helped countless clients to correct the unforeseen immigration consequence of a criminal conviction. Nor is it a surprise that we are often called upon by criminal defense attorneys to assist their clients in creating a plea to avoid deportation. Although the Padilla v. Kentucky holding will not obligate criminal defense counsel to become proficient in the many nuances of immigration law, it imposes upon them a duty to provide reasonable, accurate advice when adverse immigration consequences are clear. This nearly guarantees noncitizen-criminal defendants the right to immigration counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution – an undeniable win for immigration attorneys and their clients alike.
In an exciting, recent decision, the United States Supreme Court dramatically increased the rights of noncitizen-criminal defendants to obtain accurate immigration advice. On March 31, 2010, The Supreme Court declared that criminal defense attorneys have a duty to advise their noncitizen clients of the immigration consequences stemming from a criminal plea.
The petitioner, Jose Padilla, is a long-time lawful permanent resident of the United States who raised his family here and served our country honorably in the Vietnam War. After accruing more than forty years as a permanent resident, Mr. Padilla pled guilty to a marijuana-related offense. Mr. Padilla was represented by a criminal defense attorney who incorrectly assured him that his conviction would not result in deportation. In what was surely a tragic shock to the Padilla family, Mr. Padilla was deported from the country he has called home for decades.
The Supreme Court, however, granted some relief. In a commendable holding, the Court appropriately compared deportation to banishment or exile and declared unacceptable the utterly incorrect advice of Mr. Padilla’s attorney. Indeed, for noncitizens, feared deportation comes with a multitude of emotional, financial, health and safety concerns – all of which invoke greater anxiety than a jail sentence. A citizen in criminal proceedings may lose her liberty, but a noncitizen could lose his life, liberty and happiness – his home, his family – and in Mr. Padilla’s case – a life he has known for over forty years. The Court held that in cases like Mr. Padilla’s – where the adverse immigration consequences of a guilty plea are clear – “the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.”
Although obvious in Mr. Padilla’s case, as a general rule, immigration law and its effect on criminal convictions and criminal conduct is extraordinarily complex. The intricacies are enough to make even the most seasoned attorney’s head spin. In Padilla, the Court examined the law’s density by outlining the extensive history of immigration consequences in criminal proceedings. Highlighting its evolution, the Court explained how immigration law now includes a large class of deportable offenses. Immigration judges also enjoy increased discretion to determine the consequences of a criminal offense.
The expansive “class of deportable offenses” has resulted in a greater majority of noncitizens facing removal based on minor crimes committed decades earlier. Although the law has changed, the consequences remain severe.
In light of this discussion, it is no wonder that our firm has helped countless clients to correct the unforeseen immigration consequence of a criminal conviction. Nor is it a surprise that we are often called upon by criminal defense attorneys to assist their clients in creating a plea to avoid deportation. Although the Padilla v. Kentucky holding will not obligate criminal defense counsel to become proficient in the many nuances of immigration law, it imposes upon them a duty to provide reasonable, accurate advice when adverse immigration consequences are clear. This nearly guarantees noncitizen-criminal defendants the right to immigration counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution – an undeniable win for immigration attorneys and their clients alike.
Bookmark this post with:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.