Articles Tagged with immigration

And here is an Air Force Times report:

When Rohan Coombs joined the Marine Corps, he never thought one day he would be locked up in an immigration detention center and facing deportation from the country he had vowed to defend. . . .

The estimates are of about 8000 non-U.S. citizens enlisting to serve in the U.S. armed forces in any given year.

Thanks to LawProfsBlog here is a link to an interesting article:

Regulating the Plea-Bargaining Market: From Caveat Emptor to Consumer Protection

Stephanos Bibas, University of Pennsylvania Law School, U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-33, California Law Review, Vol. 99, Forthcoming

On Wednesday, ACCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Vargaspuentas, No. ARMY 20091096, on these three interesting issues:

I.  WHETHER APPELLANT’S TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL INFORMED HIM HIS GUILTY PLEA MIGHT RESULT IN DEPORTATION.

II.  WHETHER COUNSEL’S ADVICE REGARDING DEPORTATION WAS INEFFECTIVE. SEE PADILLA V. KENTUCKY, 08-651 (2010); STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); HILL V. LOCKHART, 474 U.S. 52 (1985).

Here courtesy of Sentencing Law & Policy:

This weekend’s must-read comes via this link at SSRN to a new piece by Margaret Colgate Love and Gabriel Chin concerning the Supreme Court’s important decision late last month in Padilla v. Kentucky.   "Padilla v. Kentucky: The Right to Counsel and the Collateral Consequences of Conviction."  Here is the abstract:

In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. (March 31, 2010), the Supreme Court broke new ground in holding in a 7-2 decision that a criminal defense lawyer had failed to provide his noncitizen client effective assistance of counsel when he did not tell him that he was almost certain to be deported if he plead guilty.  It is the first time that the Court has applied the 1984 Strickland v. Washington standard to a lawyer’s failure to advise the client about a “collateral” consequence of conviction – something other than imprisonment, fine, probation and the like, that the court imposes at sentencing.  While Padilla’s implications for cases involving deportation are clear, it may also require lawyers to consider many other legal implications of the plea.

The Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Padilla v. Kentucky, which addresses the duty to inform a client of the collateral consequences of the conviction on their immigrant status.  I have posted on this in connection with United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006) and other cases: here, here, here, and here.  Here’s a link to Padilla on SCOTUSWiki.  There are important consequences for military practitioners because as I have pointed out, there are thousands of green-card holders serving in the military.  Here are a some highlights – more later.

Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient.  Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter not addressed here.

So, to what extent does Padilla impact Denedo?  Here is the SCOTUSWiki link to the Supreme Court litigation in Denedo.  Here is a link to Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008).  Here is a link to United States v. Denedo, in which N-MCCA denied Denedo relief again.

NMCCA has it’s opinion in United States v. Denedo, the petition for error coram nobis that his been winding its way through the courts, include the United States Supreme Court.

Essentially the court finds that even if there were IAC, petitioner has not established prejudice.

Back to CAAF?