Pleas Entered Prior to Padilla

On June 30, 2014, in People v. Baret, the New York State Court of Appeals held that Padilla does not apply retroactively in N.Y. State. Although this decision may insulate many unjust pre-Padilla convictions from collateral attack, guilty pleas entered in ignorance of the consequence of deportation are unlawful and unjust, no matter the date. Immigrants will continue to fight to vacate these convictions, and IDP is deeply committed to supporting immigrants and their attorneys in those efforts.

Successful challenges to pre-Padilla pleas

Post-conviction relief practitioners and litigants may find further support for vacatur arguments in the following unpublished decisions, where trial courts vacated convictions for non-citizen defendants on grounds other than Padilla

Expansive definition of misadvice

  • People v. Worrell, 2003QN014434 (Crim. Ct., Queens County March 24, 2014) (Lopez, J.) (“may affect future applications to the INS” constitutes misadvice under People v. McDonald).
  • People v. Rancy, 2007QN031258 (Crim. Ct., Queens County Sept. 15, 2014) (Mullings, J.) (inaccurate advice given by immigration attorney, relied upon by defense counsel, constitutes misadvice under People v. McDonald)

Using immigration consequences as negotiation tool

  • People v. Gomez, No. 10911/96 (Sup. Ct., Queens County May 5, 2012) (Camacho, J.) (counsel must use immigration consequences along with other mitigating information to seek reasonably available favorable disposition from DA)

Zealous advocacy for Youthful Offender disposition

  • People v. Chou, Ind. No. 1770/1998 (Sup. Ct., Bronx County Dec. 11, 2013, Newbauer, J.)

Conflict of interest

  • People v. Jaikaran, Dckt. No. 2007QN30015 (Crim.Ct., Queens County May 16, 2012, Zoll, J.)

Egregiously deficient plea colloquy

  • People v. Farrell, Dckt. No. 2001KN006328 (Crim. Ct., Kings County Aug. 8, 2013, Farber, J.) (“a conviction may be vacated in the interest of justice if the plea allocution was . . . woefully deficient.”)