Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Padilla v. Kentucky

Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureIneffective Assistance of CounselGuilty PleasDeportation ConsequencesSixth Amendmenteffective assistance of counselStricklandguilty plea

Facts

Jose Padilla was a lawful permanent resident who had lived in the United States for more than 40 years. He pleaded guilty in Kentucky to transporting a large amount of marijuana in his tractor-trailer, a drug offense that made his deportation virtually mandatory under the immigration statute. In postconviction proceedings, Padilla alleged that his attorney not only failed to advise him of that consequence, but also incorrectly told him he did not have to worry about immigration status because he had been in the country so long. Padilla further alleged that he would have gone to trial if he had received correct advice.

Issue

Does the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel require defense counsel to advise a noncitizen defendant about the deportation risk of a guilty plea? More specifically, can counsel's failure to give correct advice about clear deportation consequences constitute constitutionally deficient performance under Strickland?

Rule

Strickland v. Washington governs ineffective-assistance claims arising from counsel's advice about deportation consequences of a guilty plea. Counsel must inform a noncitizen client whether a plea carries a risk of deportation; when the immigration consequence is truly clear, counsel must give correct advice, and when the law is not succinct and straightforward, counsel need only advise that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Rafael Mendez, a lawful permanent resident living in Phoenix, is charged with a state cocaine-distribution offense. The immigration statute plainly makes that conviction deportable, but his defense lawyer tells him that pleading guilty will not affect his immigration status because he has held a green card for 20 years.

If Rafael later seeks postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance, which is the strongest argument on the deficiency prong?

Explanation. The majority held that Strickland applies to advice about deportation consequences of a guilty plea and rejected the categorical view that deportation is outside the Sixth Amendment as a mere collateral consequence. When the immigration result is succinct, clear, and explicit, counsel must provide correct advice. False assurance that there is no immigration problem falls below an objective standard of reasonableness.