Articles Tagged with padilla v. kentucky

Thanks to Sentencing Law & Policy here is a paper that raises some thoughts on IAC for pretrial advice to clients.  As we know we won’t get anything solid on that from CAAF a la immigration because Denedo’s case is over.  But, . . . .

Post Padilla: Padilla’s Puzzles for Review in State and Federal Courts

Vanderbilt Law Research Paper Series
Vanderbilt University Law School
Nancy J. King
Vanderbilt Law School
Gray Proctor
affiliation not provided to SSRN
Federal Sentencing Reporter, Volume 23, Issue 3 (Feb 2011)

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

Here is a training video and handouts from NACDL.  This may be helpful with your junior enlisted court-martial clients who are foreign nationals.

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers must affirmatively and correctly advise their clients about the immigration consequences of entering a plea and failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. NACDL, in collaboration with the Defending Immigrants Partnership, will present a free live online training to discuss defense counsel’s duty under Padilla and related issues. Expert faculty analyze the Padilla decision, outline the steps defense counsel must take to provide effective assistance of counsel to their non-citizen clients, and provide essential instruction[.]

Swinging a Sledge: The Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel, the Law of Deportations, and Padilla v. Kentucky, August 31, 2010, Joseph Ditkoff

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court decided that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the effective assistance of legal counsel requires that counsel inform his client whether his guilty plea in a criminal case carries a risk of deportation. The Court’s decision significantly expands the reach of the traditional Sixth Amendment constitutional protection afforded criminal defendants via the long-established rule of Strickland v. Washington, and, concomitantly, significantly alters the landscape of what courts will consider to be adequate representation in criminal proceedings. The precise contours of the right, thus expanded, will be left to the vagaries of the common law in both state and federal court to map out. This short article will discuss Padilla and some of its forebears and foreshadowings. As will be seen, the Supreme Court has again left prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges with a somewhat muddy decision that leaves the hard work for later, and for others…

In light of the discussion ongoing about Denedo’s end, I thought this might be an interesting read.

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



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.

Contact Information