Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneystatutetrialpleadeportationguilty plea

defendantpleadeportationguilty plea

Related Cases

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284, 78 USLW 4235, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3989, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 211

Facts

Jose Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faced deportation after pleading guilty to drug-distribution charges in Kentucky. He claimed that his attorney failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea and incorrectly assured him that he would not face deportation due to his long residency. Padilla alleged that had he received accurate advice, he would have opted for a trial instead of pleading guilty.

Padilla claims that his counsel not only failed to advise him of this consequence prior to his entering the plea, but also told him that he 'did not have to worry about immigration status since he had been in the country so long.'

Issue

Did Padilla's counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to inform him that his guilty plea would result in automatic deportation?

Rule

The court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, which requires that counsel's performance must fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there must be a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, applies to Padilla's claim.

Analysis

The court found that Padilla's counsel engaged in deficient performance by not advising him of the deportation risk associated with his guilty plea. The court noted that the legal community's prevailing norms require attorneys to inform clients about the immigration consequences of their pleas. Given the clear language of the immigration statute regarding deportation for drug offenses, the court concluded that Padilla's counsel's incorrect advice constituted a failure to meet the standard of effective assistance.

The weight of prevailing professional norms supports the view that counsel must advise her client regarding the deportation risk.

Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether Padilla was prejudiced by his counsel's ineffective assistance.

The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that counsel engaged in deficient performance by failing to advise defendant that his plea of guilty made him subject to automatic deportation.

Who won?

Padilla prevailed in the case because the court recognized that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel regarding the critical issue of deportation, which is a significant consequence of his guilty plea.

Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Walker v. Bangs, 92 Wash.2d 854, 601 P.2d 1279

In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 62 USLW 2318, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,818, 27 Fed.R.Serv.3d 726

Lopez v. United States, 474 U.S. 1054, 106 S.Ct. 789 (Mem), 88 L.Ed.2d 767

Universal Acupuncture Pain Services, P.C. v. Quadrino & Schwartz, P.C., 370 F.3d 259

In re Riehlmann, 891 So.2d 1239, 2004-0680 (La. 1/19/05)