NYS: The holding in Padilla is not retroactive...
The holding in Padilla is not retroactive. The issue was whether the holding in Padilla would apply to Defendant, who was convicted for possession of marijuana, who claimed that defense counsel never informed her that she could be deported as a result of a guilty plea. The Court reviewed the relevant case law in the area:
Law: Defendants relies on Padilla v. Kentucky, (559 US 356 [2010]) which imposed an affirmative duty on defense counsel to provide accurate advice concerning the potential immigration consequences to a non-citizen defendant. In Chaidez v. Untied States, (133 S.Ct. 1103 [2013]), the Court subsequently held that Padilla announced a “new rule” and therefore defendants whose convictions became final prior to Padilla cannot benefit from its holding… On June 30, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Baret, (__ NY3d __, 2014 NY Slip Op 04872 [2014]) held that as a matter of state law, “Padilla created a new rule of federal constitutional criminal procedure in New York which… does not apply retroactively in CPL § 440.10 proceedings.”
The case is People v. Raymore, 1941-1998, NYLJ 1202669837108, at *1 (Sup. BX, Decided September 5, 2014)
#immigration #collateralconsequences #guiltyplea #criminaljustice #marijuanaarrest #marijaunapossession #marijuanaconviction
