Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Handgun rationing dies off in Virginia | Main | Fun at Knob Creek »

Bad advice of loss of gun rights, plea bargains to DV

Posted by David Hardy · 6 February 2012 02:13 PM

State v. Nickolas Agathis, 2012 NJ Super. Lexis II (Feb. 1, 2012). Defendant was arrested for DV, plead to it, without being informed that under New Jersey law he would be permanently barred from obtaining a firearm purchaser ID card, effectively barring him from firearm ownership. His counsel and the judge informed him that he could reapply for the card at the end of probation. The appellate court relied upon Nunez-Valdez, a recent US Supreme Court ruling voiding a plea bargain where the defendant was told that the plea would not affect his immigration status, when in fact it subjected him to immediate deportation.

The court had previously heard the case on direct appeal, and refused to grant relief. The intervening Supreme Court ruling (and, in a footnote, the decisions in Heller and McDonald) appear to have changed the situation. Note that both this and Nunez-Valdez hinge, not upon failure to inform the defendant of collateral consequences, but on the defendant being misinformed with regard to them.

Another noteworthy aspect: the appellate court treats this as ineffective assistance of counsel, but I think it's better analyzed in terms of whether the plea was "informed," regardless of the source of the misinformation. The fact that part of the advice came from the trial judge, rather than from counsel, should, I think, make the case stronger.

Hat tip to reader Alice Beard...

· prohibitted persons

Leave a comment