« Ten Rules for Dealing with Police | Main | FOPA protections for travelers »
Case with implications for DV misdemeanor pleas
Padilla v. Kentucky, handed down this morning.
Defendant was a lawful permanent resident, and pleaded guilty to transporting a large load of marihuana. His attorney advised him not to worry about deportation, and he pled guilty. When he discovered that deportation was in fact inevitable, he challenged the plea on ineffective assistance of counsel bases, and a majority of the Court agrees. The opinion points out that various immigration reforms have changed the deportation consequence from something of a concern (the sentencing judge could recommend against it, and that was virtually binding) to an inevitability. The majority thus find that deportation is a key part of the penalty, and a person pleading out must be informed of it. (Alito and Roberts concur, on the basis that the attorney affirmatively misled the defendant; Scalia and Thomas dissent, arguing that counsel need not advise a defendant regarding collateral consequences of a plea).
Thoughts: (1) This would likely extend to misdemeanor DV pleas, where the defendant was not informed of the plea's effect on firearm possession, now that Heller establishes that as a constitutional right; (2) it may also have a bearing on pre-Lautenburg pleas. Defendants there could not be informed of the consequences, because there were none at the time of the plea, but this suggests that application to pre-enactment pleas is indeed an ex post facto increase in the penalty.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Might I suggest reading the United State Constitution, or if you have, to re-read it, this time carefully. If you do, you will note that in Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of Congress, you will find:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States
Relevant part bolded. Everything else you say is utter nonsense as well. Congress has the power to pass laws, which presumably the founders did not intent to be enforced with only harsh language.
Oh? But Lautenberg is a "reasonable regulation" that only implements administrative sanctions, not punitive measures. He said so.
[W-III]
Missing the forest for the trees. A drug dealer rich enough to hire a lawyer to raise this challenge, and some judge thinks he shouldn't be deported. That's enough reason to deport him right there.
I'm sorry, but couldn't we just deport most of our judges and send the rest to Burger King's drive up window asking if we "want fries with that"?
Problems:
The feds have no immigration authority so how can they deport? The feds did not control immigration or naturalization until some time around the opening of Ellis Island but nothing changed in the Constitution giving them authority over immigration. The naturalization clause merely gives the fed the power to make an uniform rule to be used by all the states.
The feds have almost no punishment powers. The exceptions are counterfeiting, piracies and felonies on the High Seas, offenses against the Law of Nations, and treason. Each of these powers are explicitly stated in the Constitution? From where do the feds Constitutionally derive their authority to punish for any other action? BTW, it's not the "necessary and proper" clause. If it were, then the explicit grants to punish counterfeiting, piracies and felonies on the High Seas,and offenses against the Law of Nations are all unnecessary inclusions and taking that stand implies the Framers were a bunch of ignorants who had no idea what they were doing.
The saddest part of being knowledgeable about our judicial system is recognizing that it is corrupted beyond belief. It is filled with people who have no idea about the formation of our government, and have no idea about the limits on their own power.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly. Our courts prove this day in and day out.
Don't drink the Koolaid.
Tiocfaidh ar la!