Padilla v. Kentucky And Implications For The State Courts

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, announced on March 31, 2010, held that a criminal defendant who was not advised by counsel that a guilty plea might carry a risk of deportation could claim that his representation was constitutionally deficient. The Court determined that the immigration consequences of a guilty plea are an integral part of the punishment that could result from a criminal conviction, and thus are within scope of the 6th Amendment’s right to counsel.

It is clear that Padilla will affect the practice of criminal defense attorneys in cases involving immigrant defendants, particularly since all non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, face the risk of deportation for a wide range of criminal convictions. However, it is not clear how state criminal court judges will be affected by the decision. Therefore, in their continuing work under a SJI-funded Strategic Initiatives Grant, the Center for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) has recently published a summary document, The Effect of Padilla v. Kentucky on State Court Judges, that includes: 1) a brief summary of the Padilla decision; 2) examples of how some states are requiring judges to investigate whether non-citizen criminal defendants have been advised of the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea; and 3) what the judge’s role will likely be as a direct result of the Padilla decision.

This document is now available on both the SJI website, and the new CPPS website on immigration issues in the state courts.