While the Court did not rule on whether Padilla was entitled to postconviction relief, leaving this issue for the trial court to decide, a 7-2 majority found that the actions of Padilla's criminal defense attorney were "constitutionally deficient" in violation of the Sixth Amendment. In rejecting the Kentucky court's reasoning, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the Court's majority, found that because the effects of a deportation are so severe, Padilla's deportation could not be classified as a mere "collateral" consequence (Justice Stevens announced his retirement shortly after issuing this decision).
The Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, which had found that the Sixth Amendment does not protect criminal defendants from their attorneys' erroneous immigration advice because any immigration consequences that result from a guilty plea are merely "collateral" consequences of the criminal conviction, analogous to a convicted criminal losing his or her right to vote, or being barred from joining the military. Under current immigration law, however, drug trafficking is considered an aggravated felony, which renders a lawful permanent resident both deportable from the United States and ineligible for almost all forms of immigration relief, including cancellation of deportation. resident for 40 years, pled guilty to trafficking marijuana only after his defense attorney assured him that such a plea would not affect his immigration status. Kentucky, lawful permanent resident Jose Padilla, a Vietnam War veteran and a U.S. The ruling is the first case in which the Court has clearly applied Sixth Amendment protections in an immigration-law context. This type of violation can result in a defendant being eligible for "postconviction relief," such as modification of a criminal sentence or a new trial. Failure to do so, the Court held, constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel. Supreme Court has ruled that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the potential immigration consequences of accepting a guilty plea. In a historic decision affecting the interplay of criminal and immigration law, the U.S. Controversial Immigration Bill Passes Arizona State Legislature
0 kommentar(er)
