The United States Supreme Court has ruled that criminal defense attorney, in Massachusetts and throughout the United States must advise defendants of the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. Failure to do so, the court noted, deprives the defendant of effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court's holding arose from the case of Jose Padilla v. Kentucky.
Jose Padilla was a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than 40 years. Padilla entered a guilty plea to transporting a large amount of marijuana. Padilla's attorney informed him that there would be no immigration consequences to his plea which was incorrect advice as federal immigration law clearly indicated that Padilla was pleading guilty to an offense that could result in deportation.
In an opinion written by now retired Justice Stevens, the United States Supreme Court held that Padilla did not receive effective assistance of counsel as a result of his attorney failing to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. Padilla's case presented in easy case for the majority of the court as the immigration consequences were clear and the attorney's advice was wrong. The court noted that in many cases the immigration consequences will be uncertain and in those cases, a criminal defense lawyer will only have to explain that the plea may have immigration consequences. However, the court underscored that if the immigration consequences of the plea are clear then a criminal defense lawyer has a duty to provide correct advice regarding immigration consequences.
