More on Padilla
Following up on my earlier post today on Padilla, I sent the following to a few local criminal defense listservs:
Yesterday’s Padilla decision is destined to change the landscape for the better of how criminal defense lawyers and judges address immigration issues.
Here are a few related items, some of which I have posted on before:
– These immigration consequences links are now all the more important for criminal defense lawyers to have handy.
– Judges may not inquire into immigration status in criminal cases.
– In all jurisdictions it makes sense for the guilty plea litany to advise the defendant that a conviction may have adverse immigration consequences if the defendant is not a United States citizens.
– Expect the immigration authorities to consider PBJ’s and SIS’s -— and possibly Va. Code § 18.2-251 dispositions — as convictions.
– For Maryland residents in particular (based on the practices of the Baltimore immigration office), a PBJ or conviction for DUI or DWI can restart the five-year clock of good moral character needed before becoming naturalized.
– Before a non-U.S. citizen gets an expungement, it is important to obtain several certified copies of the case disposition, including proof of the marijuana weight of 30 grams or less in instances of expunged PBJ’s and Va. Code § 18.2-251 dispositions.
– For marijuana dispositions of guilt/PBJ/SIS/ and Va. Code § 18.2-251, it is important to put marijuana weight of 30 grams or less into the record, because that is the cutoff weight for non-U.S. citizens to be eligible to avert deportation from marijuana convictions, at least where the 30-gram cutoff is applicable.
– Immigration status should be barred from booking questions, and should require a Miranda waiver before being sought by police, jails, judges, court personnel, magistrates and judicial commissioners from detained folks.
– The recent immigration seminars for criminal defense lawyers have turned out to be all the more timely, in the light of Padilla.
– Under Padilla Padilla and Gideon, don’t governments have to pay for indigent immigration counsel to address immigration consequences?