Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356 (2010), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea .
In Glover v. United States, a lawyer was held to be ineffective when he failed to object to the judge's miscalculation of the defendant's sentence. [18] In Hinton v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held a lawyer's performance ineffective when he did not request funding for a better ballistics expert, though he was statutorily entitled to do so.
José Padilla (born 1950), U.S.-resident Honduran in the Padilla v. Kentucky case; José Padilla (DJ) (1955–2020), Spanish DJ; José Padilla (criminal) (born 1970), United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists; José Padilla (academic administrator), president of Valparaiso University beginning 2021
Padilla's lawyer is a proper "next friend" to sign and file the habeas corpus petition on Padilla's behalf because she, as a member of the bar, had a professional duty to defend her client's interests. Further, she had a significant attorney-client relationship with Padilla and was far from being some zealous "intruder" or "uninvited meddler ...
Padilla (surname) Padilla v. Kentucky, a United States Supreme Court case pertaining to the immigration consequences faced by lawful permanent residents who are convicted of crimes, and their rights to be warned of those consequences
In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the Court held that counsel's failure to inform an alien pleading guilty of the risk of deportation fell below the objective standard of the performance prong of Strickland and permitted an alien who would not have pleaded guilty but for such failure to withdraw his guilty plea. [66]
As stated in Brewer v.Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the right to counsel "means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, 'whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. ' " [2] Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversarial proceedings have begun ...
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1]