Posted on 03/31/2010 11:27:17 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The Supreme Court ruled in favor today of claims made by a lawful permanent resident of the United States who said his rights were violated when his lawyer failed to tell him that if he pleaded guilty to drug distribution charges he could be deported.
A 7-2 court held today that Padilla's counsel was obliged to inform him that his guilty plea would lead to his deportation. Justice Stevens wrote, "We agree with Padilla that constitutionally competent counsel would have advised him that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation."
"It is our responsibility," the court found, "under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant -- whether a citizen or not -- is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
He should sue his lawyer...right after he’s deported.
Scalia and Thomas are right on this one. What happened to Roberts and Alito?
He’s free to stay here. In prison for his drug distribution crime.
Response: Naturally.
“under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel.”
well then maybe they should order around 2/3 of the lawyers be deported...
"The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a lawyer for his defense against a criminal prosecution -- not for sound advice about the collateral consequences of conviction." wrote Scalia.
In Washington state, defendants are advised by the court before they plead that they may be deported if they’re not U.S. citizens. Every defendant is told that, even if they’re citizens. It’s just part of the drill.
Republicans don’t generally appoint Supreme Court justices faithful to the Constitution, or who would give any useful meaning to the concept of citizenship, because that would be too “extreme”.
Clearly the most disturbing statement in that column. It means that they are not differentiating between Americans and non-citizens. And what is the phrase 'legal permanent resident' mean? Is that something in the process now?
Hey “Men in Black” why didn’t your incompetent brother in black inform him that pleading guilty could result in his deportation?
I want to know what happens now. Are they throwing out the conviction or just the deportation? If they are throwing out the conviction, fine lets go to trial and finish things. If they are just throwing out the deportation this makes no sense what so ever.
It sounds to me that this guy is withdrawing his guilty plea and should not just get a
Sorry “get a walk”
A legal permanent resident is a non-citizen with a green card, more or less.
“The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a lawyer for his defense against a criminal prosecution — not for sound advice about the collateral consequences of conviction.” wrote Scalia.”
IOTW The law guarantees the accused the right to have a lawyer. It does not guarentee the lawyer’s ability.
They are thorowing out only the guilty plea. He can now plead not guilty and go to trial. If convicted, he still gets deported.
Why? Do you want two different standards of justice in this country? The key element that separates America's legal system from many others, is this very principle. The Constitution applies to every who is in this country. The defendant was an honorably discharged former member of the US Armed Forces, as well as being a permanent resident, and yet it seems like you're advocating not applying constitutional principles to his case. Why is that?
Ok..thank you for the clarification.
While I have no problem with the result of the decision, since he was a veteran who had been he legally for 40 years, I question the reasoning behind the decision.
Does the fact that a criminal’s lawyer fails to advise him fully on the consequences of a plea bargain mean the criminal should escape punishment?
Also, as Scalia stated the deportation was a collateral consequuence of the conviction, not actual punishment for the conviction.
For a plea bargained conviction to stand must a lawyer advise his client that if he takes the plea:
a) You might get raped in prison.
b) You might get stabbed or beaten to death in prison.
c) You might lose your job.
d) You might have difficulty finding a new job and be ineligible for many jobes when you are relased.
e) You might not be able to get credit, etc.
I wonder if this decision would apply to gun rights? If a lawyer did not advise his client that he would lose his gun rights if he pleads guilty to a particular crime, would that prevent the defendant from having his gun rights taken away?
No, it does guarantee just that, or so the Court has held here, and in dozens of other cases prior to this decision. Ineffective assistance of counsel has been grounds for appeal since the Supreme held as such in Stickland v. Washington some nearly three decades ago.
One can debate about whether that argument holds merit for collateral consequences, but for direct consequences it's been the law of the land for decades, as it should.
The Sixth Amendemnt says that in "all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to... have the assistance of counsel for his defence." It draws no distinctions between "accused" who are citizens and those who are aliens.
And what is the phrase 'legal permanent resident' mean? Is that something in the process now?
Someone with a "green card" is a "legal permanent resident." (That has been part of U.S. immigration law for decades or longer.) They are not yet citizens, but can lawfully live in the U.S. and can apply for citizenship after a certain number of years. People with green cards can be deported only for a few reasons, but conviction of a serious crime is one of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.