Term: 2009
Docket: 08-651
Jose Padilla v. Kentucky
- Pro
08-651 PADILLA V. KENTUCKY DECISION BELOW: 253 S.W.3d 482 CERT. GRANTED 2/23/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: Petitioner, who has lived in this country for nearly 40 years and served in the United States Army, is a legal permanent resident of this country, not a citizen. In 2001 Petitioner was indicted for trafficking in marijuana - an offense designated as an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). Prior to entering a plea of guilty to that offense, Petitioner was incorrectly advised by his counsel that the plea would not affect his immigration status. Unfortunately, because the offense was an aggravated felony, Petitioner's deportation is mandatory. Upon discovery of this fact, Petitioner sought post conviction relief in Kentucky's state courts arguing that his attorney had improperly advised him. The Supreme Court of Kentucky denied post conviction relief holding the Petitioner was not entitled to accurate advice from his attorney on immigration consequences because he had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in that proceeding. Petitioner now seeks certiorari to review the following questions: 1. Whether the mandatory deportation consequences that stem from a plea to trafficking in marijuana, an "aggravated felony" under the INA, is a "collateral consequence" of a criminal conviction which relieves counsel from any affirmative duty to investigate and advise; and 2. Assuming immigration consequences are "collateral", whether counsel's gross misadvice as to the collateral consequence of deportation can constitute a ground for setting aside a guilty plea which was induced by that faulty advice. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2006-SC-000321-DG
In the 2009 case of Jose Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that criminal defense attorneys must advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. The case involved Jose Padilla, a legal permanent resident in America for over 40 years and Vietnam War veteran who pleaded guilty to drug distribution charges on his lawyer's advice. His attorney incorrectly informed him he "did not have to worry about immigration status" since he had been in the country so long. After pleading guilty, Padilla faced deportation based on his conviction. He appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel as his lawyer did not inform him correctly about potential consequences regarding his immigration status following a guilty plea which is constitutionally required under Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance during trial proceedings including pretrial negotiations and pleas entered by defendants.
In the dissenting opinion for Jose Padilla v. Kentucky, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Sixth Amendment only guarantees a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions and does not extend to advice about potential deportation consequences. He contended that this ruling expanded the scope of constitutionally required professional legal advice beyond what was intended by the framers of the Constitution. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how courts would apply this new standard given its subjective nature and warned it could open up a floodgate of appeals from defendants claiming they were inadequately advised about various collateral consequences. Finally, he pointed out that immigration law is complex and constantly changing which makes it unreasonable to expect defense attorneys to accurately advise on such matters.
