CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL LAW: DUTY TO ADVISE CLIENTS OF IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES
The US Supremes here rule that the failure to advise a criminal defendant in state court of the federal immigration consequences of his plea is ineffective assistance of counsel. They remand for a hearing on prejudice. They make it clear that a generic advisement that the plea will have some unspecified consequences isnit enough.
Your duty is to advise the defendnate specific consequences of the plea. This duty only involves consequences that are clear, succinct and straightforward. As Alito points out, this just means a whole jurisprudence on what is clear and what is in doubt. We thought that this case was only going to say that you have a duty not to misadvise the client, but nope, you've got to give accurate advice on the consequences. It is not clear how this affects Kim (45 Cal.4th 1078) and Villa (45 Cal.4th 1063), the cases from the Cal. Supremes limiting challenges to immigration misadvisements; those cases require custody, real or constructive, and reject IAC as a ground for such a challenge.
Whatever this means, it surely means that weive all got to understand immigration consequences, and explain them to our clients. At least the consequences that are clear.
Padilla v. Kentucky; 2010 DJ DAR 4858; DJ, 4/1/10; US Supremes
