And here is an Air Force Times report: When Rohan Coombs joined the Marine Corps, he never thought one day he would be locked up in an immigration detention center and facing deportation from the country he had vowed to defend. . . . The estimates are of about 8000 non-U.S. citizens enlisting to serve…
Continue reading ›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 Abstract: Padilla v. Kentucky was a watershed in the Court’s…
Continue reading ›On Wednesday, ACCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Vargaspuentas, No. ARMY 20091096, on these three interesting issues: I. WHETHER APPELLANT’S TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL INFORMED HIM HIS GUILTY PLEA MIGHT RESULT IN DEPORTATION. II. WHETHER COUNSEL’S ADVICE REGARDING DEPORTATION WAS INEFFECTIVE. SEE PADILLA V. KENTUCKY, 08-651 (2010); STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668…
Continue reading ›KXXV.com reports: A Fort Hood soldier accused of possession of child pornography has been sentenced. A General Court-Martial found Sgt. Donald Keith Whitten guilty of wrongful possession of child pornography earlier this week. Whitten has been sentenced to 16 months of confinement and reduction to Private E1. Just five days before Ekaterine Bautista planned to…
Continue reading ›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…
Continue reading ›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.…
Continue reading ›NMCCA has it’s opinion in United States v. Denedo, the petition for error coram nobis that his been winding its way through the courts, include the United States Supreme Court. Essentially the court finds that even if there were IAC, petitioner has not established prejudice. Back to CAAF? As it stands, the case represents a…
Continue reading ›
