For this essay I will be going over the Padilla v. Kentucky case. This case was accepted into the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S) on Monday, February 23, 2009. Was argued on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 and was decided on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 (Padilla v. Kentucky, nd). I will be giving a review on the case. We will go over the issue, some of the Justices involved, a brief on the arguing parties, the outcome and the impact that this case could have on future cases regarding this type of case.
The case's basis is the Sixth Amendment clause: the right to counsel. Jose Padilla, who has been a U.S resident for the past forty years, faced being deported after he was offered a plea in which he was to plead guilt on a couple of the charges in order for them to drop the remaining charges. After his initial sentencing he filed a post-conviction relief on the basis that his counsel did not inform him that he could face deportation on account of his guilty plea (Padilla v. Kentucky, nd).
This case's decision changed a couple of times leading up the Supreme Court of the U.S decision. After Mr. Padilla was convicted, the case went to the Kentucky State of appeals court where the case was subsequently reversed and set for an evidentiary hearing. However, upon appeal to the Kentucky Supreme court and its 2005 decision on Commonwealth v. Fuartado, in which the court denied an appeal on the bases that Fuartado's counsel was not obligated to warm him on the collateral consequences of a guilty plea (Padilla v. Kentucky, nd).
The court concluded that, "The Sixth Amendment requires representation encompassing only the criminal prosecution itself and the direct consequences thereof" and that, "The existence of collateral consequences is irrelevant to the determination of a defendant's guilt or innocence and completely outside the authority or control of the trial court" (Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2008). That was enough for the Supreme Court of Kentucky to conclude that the repercussions of Mr. Padilla's guilty plea, in respect to the possibility to being deported held no relevance (Padilla v. Kentucky, nd).
That led to two essential questions to the Supreme Court of the U.S. The first was, that if a guilty plea on drug trafficking was to lead to a mandatory deportation, but was considered as collateral consequences as per the Supreme Court of Kentucky's rational suggest. Does it relive the defendant's counsel from the responsibility to have informed his client under the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment? And the second question to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Can the guilty plea be retracted on account of the counsels misadvise about Mr. Padilla's deportation on the assumption that it is considered a "collateral consequence" (Padilla v. Kentucky, nd)? Before we get to the answers to those questions, I will give a brief history of the reign of the Supreme Court at the time. We will take quick look at some of the biographies of the Justices' who made concurrences or who had a dissent.
This case took place in what is know as the Roberts era. This version of the Roberts' era lasted from August 2009 to June 2010. It was the time in which David H. Souter retired, and Sonia Sotomayor was appointed. Chief Justice Roberts was sworn in on September 29, 2005 at the age of fifty years old making him the second youngest Chief Justice appointed. It was near the end of Justice John Paul Stevens' time on the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens is senior, not only in his length of service but also age. President Gerald Ford appointed him to High Court. As of June 29, 2010 Justice Stevens has since retired (Roberts Court (2009-2010), nd).
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. who was sworn in on January 30, 2006 after fifteen years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Although recognized for being "intellectually qualified", his main criticism came from his judicial notions in reference to controversial issues like, abortion, Presidential powers and electoral reapportionment (Roberts Court (2009-2010), nd). Lastly, we have Justice Antonin Scalia. He was sworn to the High Court in 1986 under the Reagan Administration. Justice Scalia is considered the most colorful jurist. He is viewed as having "immense legal brilliance " and "intellectual ability". His "controversial and combative justice" is what sets him apart from the other Justices. Although, his outspoken demeanor has at times estranged him from his fellow colleagues (Roberts Court (2009-2010), nd).
As for the litigants in this case, as stated in the previous paragraphs, it was the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Who overturned the lower court decision stating that it was not the responsibility of the defendant's counsel to inform him about the possibility of being deported because of his guilty plea, on the terms that it was considered as a collateral consequence. The petitioner was Jose Padilla, Latino of Honduran decent. Mr. Padilla had served in the U.S Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. He faced deportation because of his guilty plea to drug trafficking, a deportable crime. In the following paragraph's we will go over the decision that was handed out by the Supreme Court of the U.S (Supreme Court of U.S Syllabus: Padilla v. Kentucky, 2009).
In reply to the principal matter, the Justices' ruling was 7-2 in favor of Mr. Padilla. Justice Stevens wrote the majority concurrence in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor joined. In the opinion of the court, Justice Stevens states that Mr. Padilla's counsel told Mr. Padilla that he, "did not have to worry about immigration status since he had been in the country so long." Also stating that, "before deciding to plead guilty a defendant is entitled to 'the effective assistance of competent counsel', a declaration that originated from the ruling in McMann v. Richardson (Supreme Court of U.S Syllabus: Padilla v. Kentucky, 2009). Therefore Mr. Padilla's counsel had the constitutional obligation, under the Sixth Amendment, to inform his client that his guilty plea could lead to being deported.
In Justice Alito's concurrence, in which Justice Roberts had sided with, he wrote that the Supreme Court of Kentucky had adopted, "halfway standard where defense counsel must advise a client on immigration law when it is 'succinct and straightforward' but not necessarily in other situations (Padilla v. Kentucky, nd). Although Justice Alito's concurrence was in favor of Mr. Padilla, it was only within the context as proposed in Strickland v. Washington: An attorney fails to provide adequate assistance, which can mislead his client into a plea agreement that can lead to being deported. He differed from the other Justices' concurrence saying that although counsel should provide adequate advice to their clients. They should not however attempt to explain what those consequences might be. "As the Court concedes, 'immigration law can be complex'; 'it is a legal specialty of its own' (Supreme Court of U.S Syllabus: Padilla v. Kentucky, 2009).
The dissent came on behalf of Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas. In Justice Scalia's dissent, he boldly declares, "The Constitution, however, is not an all-purpose tool for judicial construction of a perfect world; and when we ignore its text in order to make it that, we often find ourselves swinging a sledge where a tack hammer is needed" Moreover, Justice Scalia writes that although the Sixth Amendment gives a guaranteed to the accused of obtaining the representation of counsel. It is for the purpose of defending himself from a criminal prosecution. Not for the intent to obtain, "advice about the collateral consequences of his conviction" (Supreme Court of U.S Syllabus: Padilla v. Kentucky, 2009). And in response to the second question of the ruling, whether or not the guilty plea could be retracted based upon the deficiency of his counsel; the Justices' did not address the issue because it was not presented to them.
What impact does Padilla v. Kentucky have on current and future court cases? As Justice Scalia put it, it could be known as the "Padilla warning" (Supreme Court of U.S Syllabus: Padilla v. Kentucky, 2009). On behalf of the outcome of this case it could lead to cases outside the context of deportation. It could be interpreted in a literal sense: As the counsel not informing their clients of the collateral consequences of any guilty plea. Moreover, it has already started to come up in cases that have already been judged. Based upon the Padilla v. Kentucky ruling, to see it this ruling could be applied retroactively (Walder, 2010).
