Justice Samuel A. Alito, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, wrote separately, concurring. 2) Assuming deportation is a "collateral consequence", can counsel's gross misadvice about deportation constitute a ground for setting aside a guilty plea that is induced by that advice? He criticized the Court for adopting a halfway standard where defense counsel must advise a client on immigration law when it is "succinct and straightforward" but not necessarily in other situations.
Jose Padilla was indicted by a Kentucky grand jury on counts of trafficking in marijuana, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating a tractor/trailer without a weight and distance tax number. The Court then remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Kentucky for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Facts of the case Jose Padilla was indicted by a Kentucky grand jury on counts of trafficking in marijuana, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating a tractor/trailer without a weight and distance tax number.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Padilla's conviction and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. 08–651. With Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that counsel's advice with respect to deportation is not categorically removed from the scope of the Sixth Amendment. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY No. It reasoned that counsel's advice on the consequences of a plea with respect to immigration is not required and therefore cannot constitute ineffectiveness. Padilla served this Nation with honor as a member of the U. S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. He criticized the majority for expanding the text of the Sixth Amendment beyond merely providing the defendant counsel to providing him "sound advice about the collateral consequences of conviction."
No. Petitioner was subsequently indicted by a grand jury in Hardin County, Kentucky, on charges of trafficking in more than five pounds of marijuana, possessing mari juana, possessing drug paraphernalia, and operating a truck without a weight and distance tax number. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief arguing that he was misadvised about the potential for deportation as a consequence of his guilty plea.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court found that, under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, an attorney must advise their client if a plea may result in deportation. The Supreme Court held that counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Not answered. He pleaded guilty to the charge after his lawyer advised him that the conviction would not affect his immigration status. On advice from his lawyer, he entered a guilty plea with respect to the three drug charges in exchange for dismissal on the final charge. He predicted that this instruction would lead to confusion and needless litigation. Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States as amicus curiae. at 20, 30. Argued October 13, 2009—Decided March 31, 2010 Petitioner Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faces deportation after pleading guilty to drug- distribution charges in Kentucky. Id. A lawful permanent resident in the U.S. and a Vietnam War veteran, Jose Padilla was arrested in Kentucky in 2001 for transporting marijuana. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, also wrote separately, dissenting. The Court did not address whether Mr. Padilla was prejudiced by his counsel's deficiency and entitled to relief.
Padilla v. Kentucky is significant because it places new and broad responsibilities on criminal defense attorneys. He now faces deportation after pleading guilty to the transportation of a large amount of marijuana in his tractor-trailer in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. He mused that the Constitution is not an "all-purpose tool" to create a perfect world. On appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, the court, relying on its decision in Commonwealth v. Fuartado, reversed the court of appeals. It held that collateral consequences of advice by counsel is outside the scope of the guarantee of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel. 1) Is the mandatory deportation that results from a guilty plea to trafficking in marijuana a "collateral consequence" that relieves counsel of an affirmative duty to advise his client per the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment? Namely, criminal attorneys must now advise non-citizen clients of the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea. In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the Supreme Court examined an attorney’s legal obligation to inform a client that a guilty plea might impact their immigration status. Here, Mr. Padilla's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because counsel could have easily determined that a guilty plea would make Mr. Padilla eligible for deportation. Petitioner Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faces deportation after pleading guilty to drug-distribution charges in Kentucky.