Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
State of New Jersey v. Gaitan and Goulbourne

State of New Jersey v. Gaitan and Goulbourne

Ratings: (0)|Views: 156|Likes:
Published by George W. Conk
The New Jersey Supreme Court on February 28, 2011 ruled that alien criminal defendants whose lawyers failed to inform that deportation would follow a guilty plea are entitled to relief only if their lawyer's error followed the landmark 2010 ruling of the U.s. Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky.
The New Jersey Supreme Court on February 28, 2011 ruled that alien criminal defendants whose lawyers failed to inform that deportation would follow a guilty plea are entitled to relief only if their lawyer's error followed the landmark 2010 ruling of the U.s. Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky.

More info:

Published by: George W. Conk on Feb 29, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/08/2015

pdf

text

original

 
SYLLABUS(ThissyllabusisnotpartoftheopinionoftheCourt.
It
hasbeenpreparedbytheOfficeoftheClerkfortheconvenienceofthereader.
It
hasbeenneitherreviewednorapprovedbytheSupremeCourt.Pleasenotethat,intheinterestsofbrevity,portionsofanyopinionmaynothavebeensummarized).Statev.FrenselGaitan(A-109)(067613)Statev.RohanGoulbourne(A-129)(068039)ArguedNovember9,2011--DecidedFebruary28,2012LaVECCHIA,
J.,
writingforamajorityoftheCourt.Intheseappeals,theCourtconsiderswhetherPadillav.Kentuckv.559U.S._,130S.Ct.1473(2010),isentitledtoretroactiveapplicationoncollateralreview;andwhetherthedefenseattorneyswereineffectiveunderStatev.Nunez-Valdez,200N.J.129(2009).In2005,defendantFrenselGaitan,alawfulpermanentresident,pledguiltytoadrugoffensethatconstitutedan"aggravatedfelony,"renderinghimremovableundertheImmigrationandNationalityAct(INA),8U.S.C.A.§§1101(a)(43)(B),1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).GaitanwassubsequentlyremovedandfiledaPCRpetitionallegingineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.AlthoughGaitanhadresponded"yes"toQuestion17onthepleaform,whichaskedifheunderstoodthathe"maybedeportedbyvirtueofyourpleaofguilty,"heassertedthatcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtowarnhimthathispleacarriedwithitpotentialimmigrationconsequences.ThePCRcourtdeniedGaitan'spetition.TheAppellateDivisionreversed,concludingthatdefensecounsel'sfailuretoprovideadviceonthepossibilityofdeportationsupportedGaitan'sineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim.419N.J.Super.365(App.Div.2011).TheCourtgrantedtheState'spetitionforcertification.206N.J.330(2011).In2008,defendantRohanGoulboume,alawfulpermanentresident,pledguiltytoadrugoffensethatlikewiserenderedhimremovableundertheINA.Atthepleahearing,bothdefensecounselandthecourtinformedGoulboumethathe"mayverywell"bedeportedasaresultoftheplea.GoulboumealsoreviewedandansweredQuestion17onthepleaform.GoulboumewassubsequentlychargedwithremovalandfiledaPCRpetitionallegingthathiscounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoexplainthathewouldbedeportedifhepledguiltyandthathehadtherighttoconsultanimmigrationattorney.ThePCRcourtconductedanevidentiaryhearing.AlthoughGoulboumeappearedtobefocusedduringhispleahearingonpotentialjailtime,thePCRcourtgaveGoulboume"thebenefitofthedoubt"thathewouldnothavepledguiltyhadhebeenbetteradvisedofthedeportationconsequencesofhisplea.Accordingly,thePCRcourtfoundthattheadvicerenderedtoGoulboumewas"incomplete,"grantedhisPCRpetition,andallowedhimtowithdrawhisplea.TheAppellateDivisionaffirmed.TheCourtgrantedtheState'smotionforleavetoappeal.207N.J.226(2011).HELD:Padillarepresentsanewconstitutionalruleoflawthat,forSixthAmendmentpurposes,isnotentitledtoretroactiveapplicationoncollateralreview.AlthoughNunez-Valdezgovernsthestandardofattorneyperformanceinthesecases,defendantsarenotentitledtoreliefunderthatdecisionbecauseneitherdefendantwasaffirmativelymisadvisedbycounselorestablishedprejudice.1.Toestablishaclaimforineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,adefendantmustshowdeficientperformancebycounsel"soseriousthatcounselwasnotfunctioningasthe'counsel'guaranteedbytheSixthAmendment"andthatthedefendantwasprejudicedbytheattorney'sperformance.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,687(1984).Courtsarepermittedtoexaminefirstwhetheradefendanthasbeenprejudicedand,ifnot,todismisstheclaimwithoutdeterminingwhethercounsel'sperformancewasconstitutionallydeficient.AdefendantassertingineffectiveassistanceofcounselonPCRbearstheburdenofprovinghisorherrighttoreliefbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Toshowprejudiceafterhavingenteredaguiltyplea,adefendantmustprovethatthereisareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounsel'serrors,heorshewouldnothavepledguilty.(pp.8-10)2.Nunez-Valdezheldthatwhencounselprovidesfalseoraffirmativelymisleadingadviceaboutthedeportationconsequencesofaguiltyplea,andthedefendantdemonstratesthathewouldnothavepledguiltyifhehadbeenprovidedwithaccurateinformation,anineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimhasbeenestablished.UnderNew
1
 
Jerseylaw,priortoNunez-Valdez,althoughattorneyswerenotrequiredtowarnofcollateralconsequencesofaplea,duetoconcernsaboutaffirmativemisinformationthatcouldundercutaknowingandvoluntaryplea,attorneyscouldnotaffirmativelygivewrongorinaccurateinformationaboutimmigrationconsequencesofaguiltypleawithoutriskinganineffectiveassistanceclaim.(pp.10-14)3.Padillaheldthat,tosatisfyadefendant'sSixthAmendmentrighttoeffectiveassistanceofcounsel,counselhasanaffirmativeobligationtoinformaclientwhenapleaplacestheclientatriskofdeportation.Padillarecognizednodistinctionbetweenprovidingaffmnativemisadviceandprovidingnoadvice.Boththeconcurringanddissentingopinionsdisagreedwiththemajority'sconclusionthatadefenseattorneymustaffirmativelyexplainthedeportationconsequencesofaplea.(pp.15-20)4.Understandingchangesinfederalimmigrationlawisessentialtocomprehendingtheimportanceoflegaladviceregardingtheimmigrationconsequencesofguiltypleas.TheINAenumeratescategoriesofnoncitizenswhoaresubjecttoremoval,includingthoseconvictedofcertaincrimessuchasany"aggravatedfelony."Inthepast,noncitizenswhocommittedcertaincrimeshadopportunitiestoavoiddeportationorremoval,eitherthroughstatutorywaiversortheexerciseofjudicialdiscretion.However,throughchangesbeginningin1990,inparticularthe1996amendmentstotheINA,mostformsofrelieffornoncitizenswhocommittedcrimesqualifyingasaggravatedfelonieswereeliminated,therebyrenderingthemalmostcertaintoberemoved.(pp.20-25)5.Althoughtherewasnorequirementtowarnanoncitizenaboutthedeportationconsequencesofaguiltyplea,beginningin1988,thepleaforminNewJerseyaskednoncitizendefendantswhethertheyunderstoodthatthey"may"bedeportedbyvirtueoftheirguiltyplea.Thatphraseologydemonstrateduneasinesswithanyattempttoaddressallthenuancesthatcouldariseinanoncitizen'scircumstances.A2009amendmenttothepleaform,whichwasinpartaresponsetoNunez-Valdez,askedadefendantifheunderstoodthathe"will"besubjecttodeportationforpleadingguiltytoacrimeconstitutingan"aggravatedfelony"underfederallawandthathecanseeklegaladviceonhisimmigrationstatusbeforepleadingguilty.Thatrefinementattemptedtoraiseadefendant'sconsciousnessoftheriskofdeportationandtoprovideanopportunityforadefendanttoseekadvicefromimmigrationcounsel,butitdidnotrequiredefensecounseltobecomeversedinimmigrationlawinordertosecureaknowingandvoluntaryplea.(pp.25-29)6.Underfederallaw,whetherPadillaappliesretroactivelydependsonwhetheritannouncedanewrule.Anewrulegenerallydoesnotapplyretroactivelytoacasewheredirectappealisoverandthecaseisonlybeingreviewedonacollateralbasis.Aruleisnewifitbreaksnewgroundandisonewhoseresultwasnotdictatedbyprecedentexistingatthetimethedefendant'sconvictionbecamefinal.Anoutcomeisnotdictatedbyprecedentifitissusceptibletodebateamongreasonableminds.(pp.29-33)7.Padillarepresentsanewconstitutionalruleoflawthatisnotentitledtoretroactiveapplicationoncollateralreview.PadillawasnotdictatedbyprecedentanddidnotinvolveasimpleapplicationofStricklandtonewfacts.PriortoPadilla,theSupremeCourthadneverheldthattheSixthAmendmentrequiresacriminaldefenseattorneytoprovideadviceaboutmattersnotdirectlyrelatedtotheirclient'scriminalprosecution.Now,counselmustprovidenewaffirmativeadvice,andineffectiveassistanceclaimsmaybesubstantiatedongroundsotherthangivingaffirmativemisinformation.Inaddition,thevariouspointsofviewexpressedinthePadillaopinionsandpre-PadillaopinionsfindingthattherewasnodutytowarnclientsabouttheriskofdeportationshowsthatreasonablemindscoulddisagreeaboutanticipatingPadilla'sholding.Onlyacourtholding,notprofessionalnorms,cansetthestandardforconstitutionalperformance.Padillaestablishedthatitisnowmandatorytoadviseapleadingnoncitizencriminaldefendantofimmigrationconsequences,whichisanewconstitutionalstandardforprovidingeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.(pp.33-42)8.PadillagoesfurtherthanNunez-Valdez'srequirementsandthereforeisalsoanewrulethatisnotentitledtoretroactiveapplicationunderastatelawretroactivityanalysis.AlthoughPadillawillnotapplyretroactivelyoncollateralreview,Nunez-ValdezdidnotannounceanewruleandgovernsthestandardofattorneyperformanceinNewJerseyinineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimsoncollateralreview.(pp.42-45)9.Nunez-ValdezdoesnotaffordrelieftoGaitanbecauseitaddressedaffirmativemisinformationandmisleadingadviceand,beforePadilla,thelawdidnotrequirecounseltoaffirmativelyadviseGaitanonthedeportationconsequencesofhisconviction.TheCourt'sdeterminationinNunez-Valdeztorefinethepleaformdoesnotrender
2
 
asmisadvicetheinformationthatwasprovidedtoGaitanthroughthethen-existingpleaform,nordidtherevisedformvestfurtherrightsinGaitanorotherswhoseektohavetheirpleasreviewedcollaterally.Thechangesreflectthedifficultyofpredictingwithcertaintytheimmigrationconsequencesofaguiltyplea.Finally,Gaitanfailedtoprovidesupportforhisassertionthathewouldnothavepledguiltyhadheknownofthedeportationconsequences.(pp.45-48)10.ThePCRcourtdidnotapplythecorrectPCRstandardingiving''thebenefitofthedoubt"toGoulbournethathewouldnothavepledguilty.Goulbournefailedtomeethisburdenofproving,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,thathewasprejudicedbecause,atthetimeofthepleaandsentencing,hewasconcernedwithpotentialjailtime,notthedeportationconsequencesofhisplea.Inaddition,therewasnodeficientperformanceofGoulbourne'scounsellikewhatoccurredinNufiez-Valdez.Goulbournedidnotreceivewrongadviceunderthen-existinglawandtheimmigrationconsequenceswereemphasizedasrealandbeyondthecontrolofthecriminaljusticesystem.(pp.48-54)11.ThePadilladecisionappliesprospectively.
It
isimportantforcriminaldefenseattorneystosecureaccurateadvicefortheirclientsonwhetheraguiltypleatocertaincrimeswillrenderthemmandatorilyremovable,andnumerousresourcesareavailabletohelpattorneysdothis.Evenifremovalisnotmandated,counselmusthighlightfornoncitizenclientsthatenteringaguiltypleawillplacethematriskofremovalandthattheymayseeklegaladviceonpotentialimmigrationconsequences.Finally,underNufiez-Valdez,ifcounselprovidedaffirmativelymisleadingadviceabouttheremovalconsequencesofaguiltyplea,thendeficiencymayexistforpurposesofestablishingaprimafacieineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimentitlingdefendanttoanevidentiaryhearinginaPCRproceeding.(pp.54-57)ThejudgmentsoftheAppellateDivisionareREVERSED,andthemattersareREMANDEDtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththeCourt'sopinion.JUSTICEALBIN,DISSENTING,joinedbyJUSTICELONG,expressestheviewthatatthetimeofGaitan'splea,basedonthen-professionalnorms,defensecounselhadanobligationtoinformtheirnoncitizenclientsthataguiltypleacarriedtheriskofadverseimmigrationconsequences,includingdeportation;therefore,Padilladidnotcreateanewconstitutionalrule.CHIEFJUSTICERABNER,JUSTICESHOENSandPATTERSON,andJUDGEWEFING(temporarilyassigned)joininJUSTICELaVECCHIA'sopinion.JUSTICEALBINfiledaseparate,dissentingopinioninwhichJUSTICELONGjoins.
3

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->