Summary
The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that defense counsel's failure to advise, or alleged incorrect advice, concerning the immigration consequences of a guilty plea did not support relief under RCr 11.42 because deportation was considered a collateral consequence outside the Sixth Amendment's required scope of representation. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the denial of post-conviction relief by the Hardin Circuit Court. Two justices dissented, concluding that the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his allegation of affirmative misadvice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether counsel's alleged incorrect advice about the deportation consequences of a guilty plea could support an ineffective-assistance claim under RCr 11.42.
- Whether deportation, as a collateral consequence of a conviction, falls outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel such that both failure to advise and incorrect advice provide no basis for post-conviction relief.
Holdings
- Because deportation is a collateral consequence outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel under Commonwealth v. Fuartado, neither counsel's failure to advise the defendant about deportation nor counsel's incorrect advice about that collateral consequence provides a basis for relief under RCr 11.42.
Key quotations
“As collateral consequences are outside the scope of the guarantee of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, it follows that counsel's failure to advise Appellee of such collateral issue or his act of advising Appellee incorrectly provides no basis for relief.” (485)
“Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the final judgment of the Hardin Circuit Court denying RCr 11.42 relief.” (485)
Factual background
Padilla, a native of Honduras who had lived in the United States for decades and served in the United States military during the Vietnam War, was indicted on drug and vehicle-related charges. He pleaded guilty to three drug-related charges in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charge and a ten-year sentence, consisting of five years to serve and five years of probation. In an RCr 11.42 motion, he alleged that counsel told him he did not need to worry about his immigration status because he had been in the country so long.
Procedural history
Padilla pleaded guilty to three drug-related charges under an agreement providing for a ten-year sentence, with five years to serve and five years on probation. After final judgment, he filed an RCr 11.42 motion alleging that counsel had misadvised him about the immigration consequences of the plea. The Hardin Circuit Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the circuit court's judgment.