Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Date: March 31, 2010

Citation: 559 US ‗‗‗ 2010

Issue: Sixth Amendment

Significance: In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States determined counsel must tell a client whether his or her plea carries a risk of deportation. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, stating that Padilla’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because his lawyer did not explain to him that his plea of guilty could lead to his deportation.

Background

José Padilla, a Honduras national, was a permanent resident of the United States, having lived in the country for about forty years. He had served in the US military during the Vietnam War. Padilla worked as a truck driver. In September 2001 he was arrested in Kentucky after a police officer conducted a document check on Padilla’s truck, and with Padilla’s permission, searched his vehicle and found nearly two dozen boxes that contained altogether about a half ton of marijuana. Padilla was later indicted by a Kentucky grand jury on counts of trafficking more than five pounds of marijuana, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating a tractor/trailer without a weight and distance tax number. Based on Kentucky law, if convicted, Padilla could receive a sentence of five to ten years in prison because the weight of the marijuana that was discovered in his possession made it a Class C felony.

Padilla was given a state-funded attorney. In 2002, he pleaded guilty to the first three counts, which his lawyer advised, as long as the last charge was dismissed. As part of the plea, he would serve five years in prison and be on probation for another five years. Padilla’s lawyer told him that Padilla did not need to be concerned with deportation because of his legal status as a permanent resident and the length of his residency in the United States.

Under federal law, the charges against Padilla could have led to his deportation. Because he feared being deported, in August 2004, Padilla filed a motion that his lawyer misadvised him and that he only pleaded guilty because of the reassurance by his counsel that he would not be deported. He filed this motion because he worried that he would be deported. Padilla explained that he would have never pleaded guilty had he known that the charges against him could lead to his deportation. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed Padilla’s conviction and remanded the case. In 2008, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that even if an attorney fails to tell a client that about "collateral consequences" (any additional civil state penalties that are attached to criminal convictions) or misadvises a client about collateral consequences that is not grounds for changing or lightening the conviction. Padilla then petitioned the US Supreme Court. The two questions posted before the Court in March 2012 were: (1) Is the mandatory deportation that results from a guilty plea to trafficking marijuana a collateral consequence that releases counsel from having to advise his or her client based on the rights outlined in the Sixth Amendment; and (2) if deportation is a collateral consequence, can counsel’s lack of advice about such deportation serve as grounds for putting aside a guilty plea that was entered by a client based upon that advice?

Opinion of the Court

In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Padilla’s Sixth Amendment rights (i.e., a criminal defendant is entitled to effective assistance when deciding whether to plead guilty) were violated when Padilla’s counsel did not disclose to him—a noncitizen—that a guilty plea could lead to his deportation. Further, counsel should inform a noncitizen of collateral consequences that would lead to the noncitizen’s deportation. Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor concurred. As Justice Stevens wrote:

• The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never ben more important. These changes confirm our view, that as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part—indeed, sometimes the most important part—of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specific crimes.

Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined by Justice John Roberts, wrote a concurring opinion. Alito expressed that the Court cannot expect that a criminal defense attorney be versed in all of our country’s immigration laws and that an alien (noncitizen) should consult an immigration attorney about matters relating to immigration consequences.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined by Clarence Thomas, wrote the dissenting opinion. Scalia said that the Court was expanding and going beyond the text of the Sixth Amendment, which outlines that counsel must provide good advice about the collateral consequences of the conviction.

Impact

In a day and age when there has been a plethora of immigration laws passed that make some criminal convictions grounds for deportation, the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky had significant implications. First, it gave noncitizens, especially Latinos, more faith in the US legal system, especially as it makes counsel, which in many cases can be state-funded and appointed, accountable for his or her advice in plea bargains. Second, the Court’s decision in Padilla brought to light that citizenship takes a key place in the process of criminal cases. Deportation is a real threat to many immigrants in the United States, especially Latinos. As immigration reform continues to be a hot topic among political parties and platforms, many immigrants are concerned they could be deported and their families broken apart. Many hold the perception that there is a general feeling among the American public on immigration reform and the need to limit immigration.

Consequently, not long after the Padilla decision, Senior Counsel and founder of the Immigrant Defense Project (IDP), Manuel D. Vargas, compiled an advisory and a number of resources for practitioners to aid them in the evaluation of consequences that are added to criminal convictions

Bibliography

Arnold, Kathryn R. Contemporary Immigration in America: A State-by-State Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2015. Print.

Kurbin, Charis E., Marjorie S. Zatz, and Ramiro Martinez, eds. Punishing Immigrants: Policy, Politics, and Injustice (New Perspectives in Crime, Deviance, and Law). New York: New York UP, 2012. Print.

Love, Margaret Colgate. "Collateral Consequences after Padilla v. Kentucky: From Punishment to Regulation." Saint Louis University Public Law Review (2011): 87–128. Web. 2 Feb. 2016

Luna, Erik, and Marianne Wade. The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.

Murphy, Kara B. "Representing Noncitizens in Criminal Proceedings: Resolving Unanswered Questions in Padilla v. Kentucky." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 101.4 (2011). Web. 2 Feb. 2016.

"Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky." Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court of the U.S., 2011. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.

Rosenberg, Joanna. "A Game Changer? The Impact of Padilla v. Kentucky on the Collateral Consequences Rule and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims." Fordham Law Review 3.7 (2013). Web. 2 Feb. 2016.

"Supreme Court of the United States Jose Padilla, Petitioner v. Kentucky." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.