Post Padilla: Padilla’s Puzzles for Review in State and Federal Courts Vanderbilt Law Research Paper Series Vanderbilt University Law School Nancy J. King Vanderbilt Law School Gray Proctor affiliation not provided to SSRN Federal Sentencing Reporter, Volume 23, Issue 3 (Feb 2011) Abstract: This article addresses questions that may face courts as defendants seek relief under the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that counsel’s failure to adequately inform the defendant of the deportation consequences of conviction constituted deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment. Issues addressed include: express waivers of review in plea agreements; what constitutes deficient advice and prejudice sufficient for a finding of ineffective assistance; the retroactive application of Padilla to cases on post-conviction review; federal habeas review of state court decisions rejecting Padilla-type claims; procedural default, successive petition, and time bars to federal habeas review of Padilla claims; and other collateral relief. This draft includes citations to emerging case authority available as of October 28, 2010.

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 turn to regulating plea bargaining. For decades, the Supreme Court has focused on jury trials as the central subject of criminal procedure, with only modest and ineffective procedural regulation of guilty pleas. This older view treated trials as the norm, was indifferent to sentencing, trusted judges and juries to protect innocence, and drew clean lines excluding civil proceedings and collateral consequences from its purview. In United States v. Ruiz in 2002, the Court began to focus on the realities of the plea process itself, but did so only half-way. Not until Padilla this past year did the Court regulate plea bargaining’s substantive calculus, its attendant sentencing decisions, the lawyers who run it, and related civil and collateral consequences. Padilla marks the eclipse of Justice Scalia’s formalist originalism, the parting triumph of Justice Stevens’ common-law incrementalism, and the rise of the two realistic ex-prosecutors on the Court, Justices Alito and Sotomayor. To complete Padilla’s unfinished business, the Court and legislatures should look to consumer protection law, to regulate at least the process if not the substance of plea bargaining.

For court-martials under the UCMJ, think United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006)(sex offender registration) and Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008), aff’d and remanded, United States v. Denedo, 129 S. Ct. 2213, 2224 (2009)(immigration consquences). For further information about Denedo here is my post after the March 2010 action by NMCCA, and here is the denial of a grant by CAAF in September 2010. Sadly, Denedo lost his challenge at CAAF because his appellate defense counsel missed the filing deadline. So an appellate case that – Denedo alleges — began with trial defense counsel IAC ends with his appellate defense counsel missing a filing deadline.

In support of the motion for leave to file writ-appeal petition out of time, Denedo’s counsel explained that he “erroneously believed that this case was governed by Rule 19(a)(1)(B),” which provides sixty days from the date of the decision at the CCA for filing a petition for review with this court. [this is not good cause to waive the deadline] Accordingly, it is ordered that Appellant’s motion for leave to file a writ-appeal petition out of time is hereby denied[.]

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers must affirmatively and correctly advise their clients about the immigration consequences of entering a plea and failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. NACDL, in collaboration with the Defending Immigrants Partnership, will present a free live online training to discuss defense counsel’s duty under Padilla and related issues. Expert faculty analyze the Padilla decision, outline the steps defense counsel must take to provide effective assistance of counsel to their non-citizen clients, and provide essential instruction[.]

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court decided that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the effective assistance of legal counsel requires that counsel inform his client whether his guilty plea in a criminal case carries a risk of deportation. The Court’s decision significantly expands the reach of the traditional Sixth Amendment constitutional protection afforded criminal defendants via the long-established rule of Strickland v. Washington, and, concomitantly, significantly alters the landscape of what courts will consider to be adequate representation in criminal proceedings. The precise contours of the right, thus expanded, will be left to the vagaries of the common law in both state and federal court to map out. This short article will discuss Padilla and some of its forebears and foreshadowings. As will be seen, the Supreme Court has again left prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges with a somewhat muddy decision that leaves the hard work for later, and for others…

In light of the discussion ongoing about Denedo’s end, I thought this might be an interesting read.

In light of Denedo and Padilla, defense counsel representing first term enlisted personnel at court-martial need to add “citizenship” to the check-list; along with, since Miller, sex offender registration if the charges relate to pornography or sex.

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 (1984); HILL V. LOCKHART, 474 U.S. 52 (1985). III. IF APPELLANT’S COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, WHAT RELIEF, IF ANY, IS APPROPRIATE.

Remember Denedo?

From the headnotes in Hill:

In the present case it is unnecessary to determine whether there may be circumstances under which erroneous advice by counsel as to parole eligibility may be deemed constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, because petitioner’s allegations were insufficient to satisfy the “prejudice” requirement. He did not allege in his habeas petition that, had counsel correctly informed him about his parole eligibility [474 U.S. 52, 53] date, he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial. Nor did he allege any special circumstances that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility in deciding whether to plead guilty.

And from Padilla:

To satisfy Strickland ’s two-prong inquiry, counsel’s representation must fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness,” 466 U. S., at 688, and there must be “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” id. , at 694. The first, constitutional deficiency, is necessarily linked to the legal community’s practice and expectations. Id. , at 688. The weight of prevailing professional norms supports the view that counsel must advise her client regarding the deportation risk. And this Court has recognized the importance to the client of “ ‘[p]reserving the … right to remain in the United States’ ” and “preserving the possibility of” discretionary relief from deportation. INS v. St. Cyr , 533 U. S. 289 . Thus, this is not a hard case in which to find deficiency: The consequences of Padilla’s plea could easily be determined from reading the removal statute, his deportation was presumptively mandatory, and his counsel’s advice was incorrect. There will, however, undoubtedly be numerous situations in which the deportation consequences of a plea are unclear. In those cases, a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry adverse immigration consequences. But when the deportation consequence is truly clear, as it was here, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear. Accepting Padilla’s allegations as true, he has sufficiently alleged constitutional deficiency to satisfy Strickland ’s first prong. Whether he can satisfy the second prong, prejudice, is left for the Kentucky courts to consider in the first instance.

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 the abstract: In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. (March 31, 2010), the Supreme Court broke new ground in holding in a 7-2 decision that a criminal defense lawyer had failed to provide his noncitizen client effective assistance of counsel when he did not tell him that he was almost certain to be deported if he plead guilty. It is the first time that the Court has applied the 1984 Strickland v. Washington standard to a lawyer’s failure to advise the client about a “collateral” consequence of conviction – something other than imprisonment, fine, probation and the like, that the court imposes at sentencing. While Padilla’s implications for cases involving deportation are clear, it may also require lawyers to consider many other legal implications of the plea.

Within the military we have seen this issue applied to sex offender registration.

The Padilla decision clearly governs cases where a noncitizen is threatened with deportation on the basis of conviction. But if that were all, it would not “mark a major upheaval in Sixth Amendment law,” as the concurring Justices warned. While Padilla’s effects will be felt most immediately in the tens of thousands of criminal cases involving noncitizen defendants, defense lawyers must now concern themselves more generally with the broader legal effects of a criminal conviction on their clients. The systemic impact of this new obligation cannot be underestimated. Padilla may turn out to be the most important right to counsel case since Gideon, and the “Padilla advisory” may become as familiar a fixture of a criminal case as the Miranda warning.

Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter not addressed here.

So, to what extent does Padilla impact Denedo? Here is the SCOTUSWiki link to the Supreme Court litigation in Denedo. Here is a link to Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). Here is a link to United States v. Denedo, in which N-MCCA denied Denedo relief again.

Justice Stevens writes for the court, with Justice Alito writing in concurrence with the judgment for himself and Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Scalia writes in dissent for himself and Justice Thomas.

In this post conviction proceeding, Padilla claims that his counsel not only failed to advise him of this consequence prior to his entering the plea, but also told him that he“‘did not have to worry about immigration status since he had been in the country so long.’” 253 S. W. 3d 482, 483 (Ky. 2008). Padilla relied on his counsel’s erroneous ad-vice when he pleaded guilty to the drug charges that made his deportation virtually mandatory. He alleges that he would have insisted on going to trial if he had not received incorrect advice from his attorney. We granted certiorari, 555 U. S. ___ (2009), to decide whether, as a matter of federal law, Padilla’s counsel had an obligation to advise him that the offense to which he was pleading guilty would result in his removal from this country. We agree with Padilla that constitutionally competent counsel would have advised him that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter that we do not address. . . [C]hanges to our immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction. The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important.These changes confirm our view that, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part—indeed, some-times the most important part7—of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes. . . The weight of prevailing professional norms supports the view that counsel must advise her client regarding the risk of deportation.

Slip op. at 9.

So, what else shall we see in the opinion? That if the advice is given it must be right? More later.