The Supreme Court recently issued an opinion where the justices held that criminal clients must receive advice from their attorneys regarding the immigration consequences of an plea agreement.

The immigration law has tightened up significantly since 1996 to the point where conviction of certain relatively minor crimes will result in automatic deportation under the Immigration laws.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla vs. Kentucky, No. 08-651 (U.S. 3/31/2010), means that criminal lawyers will need to advise their clients regarding the effect a plea agreement may have on an immigrant’s ability to remain in the United States.

Writes Justice Stevens in Padilla v. Kentucky:

It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the “mercies of incompetent counsel.” Richardson, 397 U. S., at 771. To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Our longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this country demand no less.

Illinois already has a requirement similar to that now required by the Supreme Court, writes Chicago Criminal Law Blog author attorney Ava George Stewart.

Technorati Tags: criminal law, deportation, immigration, law, plea agreement, Supreme Court

Comments