15 Cited authorities

Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (2010) Cited 8,611 times 131 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel has a duty under the Sixth Amendment to inform a noncitizen defendant that his plea would make him eligible for deportation
Halbert v. Michigan
545 U.S. 605 (2005) Cited 487 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants seeking first-tier review of guilty or nolo contendere pleas in the intermediate state court of appeals, whose function is to review and "correct errors made by the lower courts," even though such review is discretionary under state law
People v. Peque
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7651 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 624 times
Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea
People v. Haffiz
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4376 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 139 times
Finding that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is "predicated on hearsay matters and facts not found in the record on appeal" and therefore "should be raised in a postconviction application under CPL article 440, where the basis of the claim may be fully developed"
People v. Spotford
85 N.Y.2d 593 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 93 times
In People v. Spotford, 85 N.Y. 2d 593, 596 (1995), the New York Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant has a right, under New York law, to be present at a Ventimiglia hearing.
People v. Ventura
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7475 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 48 times
In People v. Ventura, 17 N.Y.3d 675, 934 N.Y.S.2d 756, 958 N.E.2d 884 (2011), we held that the Appellate Division abused its discretion in dismissing two pending direct appeals due to the involuntary deportations of the defendants.
People v. Puluc-Sique
182 Cal.App.4th 894 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 39 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Puluc-Sique, the People argued that the court was required to dismiss the defendant's appeal because deportation placed him beyond the jurisdiction of California's courts (id. at 899).
State of New York v. Jose Diaz
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6504 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 43 times
In People v Diaz (7 NY3d 831 [2006]), we ourselves exercised the discretion afforded "the appellate court" by Criminal Procedure Law § 470.
People v. Nesbitt
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1990 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 20 times
In Nesbitt, defense counsel gave no defense for an assault in the first degree and did not request an instruction for a lesser included offense, later arguing to the jury that (while it should find defendant not guilty on another offense) the jury could make its own decision on the assault count, 20 N.Y.3d at 1081, 965 N.Y.S.2d at 744.
People v. Radcliffe
298 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) Cited 32 times
In Radcliffe, defendant "claim[ed] that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a pretrial offer of a sentence of two to four years incarceration in exchange for a plea of guilty."

The People, Respondent,v.Andre Harrison, Appellant.

15 Cited authorities

Holding that counsel has a duty under the Sixth Amendment to inform a noncitizen defendant that his plea would make him eligible for deportation

Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea

Finding that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is "predicated on hearsay matters and facts not found in the record on appeal" and therefore "should be raised in a postconviction application under CPL article 440, where the basis of the claim may be fully developed"

In People v. Spotford, 85 N.Y. 2d 593, 596 (1995), the New York Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant has a right, under New York law, to be present at a Ventimiglia hearing.

In People v. Ventura, 17 N.Y.3d 675, 934 N.Y.S.2d 756, 958 N.E.2d 884 (2011), we held that the Appellate Division abused its discretion in dismissing two pending direct appeals due to the involuntary deportations of the defendants.

In Puluc-Sique, the People argued that the court was required to dismiss the defendant's appeal because deportation placed him beyond the jurisdiction of California's courts (id. at 899).

In People v Diaz (7 NY3d 831 [2006]), we ourselves exercised the discretion afforded "the appellate court" by Criminal Procedure Law § 470.

In Radcliffe, defendant "claim[ed] that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a pretrial offer of a sentence of two to four years incarceration in exchange for a plea of guilty."