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 .
Case name Citation Date decided Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York: 559 U.S. 1: 2010: Briscoe v. Virginia: 559 U.S. 32: 2010: Wilkins v. Gaddy: 559 U.S. 34
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 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.
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]
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) Criminal defense attorneys are duty-bound to inform clients of the risk of deportation under three circumstances. First, where the law is unambiguous, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation "will" result from a conviction.
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. [23]
Constitutional law of the United States; Overview; Articles; Amendments; History; Judicial review; Principles; Separation of powers; Individual rights; Rule of law