13 Cited authorities

Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (2010) Cited 8,616 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
Teague v. Lane
489 U.S. 288 (1989) Cited 7,707 times 99 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively
Chaidez v. United States
568 U.S. 342 (2013) Cited 1,473 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that Padilla could not be applied retroactively to cases which became final before the case was decided
People v. Ford
86 N.Y.2d 397 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 1,246 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Ford, the court held that due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.
People v. McDonald
1 N.Y.3d 109 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 354 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming denial of relief where counsel's "affirmation makes no factual allegation that, but for error, defendant would not have pleaded guilty"
Policano v. Herbert
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8284 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 171 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the governing law is the law at the time the petitioner's conviction became final
People v. Eastman
85 N.Y.2d 265 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 104 times
In Eastman, however, the Appellate Division didnot deny leave to appeal the Supreme Court's decision. Rather, the Appellate Division reviewed that decision on the merits and, according to the Court of Appeals, incorrectly affirmed it.
People v. Bennett
28 Misc. 3d 575 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2010) Cited 40 times
Holding that Padilla is not a new rule and applies retroactively
People v. Andrews
108 A.D.3d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) Cited 32 times
In Andrews, the Appellate Division noted that the defendant in that case could not benefit from Padilla because "his conviction became final, at the latest, on October 5, 2009, the last date on which he would have been permitted to seek leave to file a late notice of appeal" (Andrews, 108 A.D.3d at 728, 970 N.Y.S.2d 226 [emphasis added]).
People v. Garcia
29 Misc. 3d 756 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010) Cited 28 times
In Garcia, the New York Supreme Court determined that when the judge or magistrate's instruction is sufficiently clear so as to put the defendant on notice that he indeed will be deported if he pleads guilty, notions of "cure" may apply.

The People, Appellant,v.Roman Baret, Respondent.

13 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 the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively

Holding that Padilla could not be applied retroactively to cases which became final before the case was decided

In Ford, the court held that due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.

Affirming denial of relief where counsel's "affirmation makes no factual allegation that, but for error, defendant would not have pleaded guilty"

Holding that the governing law is the law at the time the petitioner's conviction became final

In Eastman, however, the Appellate Division didnot deny leave to appeal the Supreme Court's decision. Rather, the Appellate Division reviewed that decision on the merits and, according to the Court of Appeals, incorrectly affirmed it.

Holding that Padilla is not a new rule and applies retroactively

In Garcia, the New York Supreme Court determined that when the judge or magistrate's instruction is sufficiently clear so as to put the defendant on notice that he indeed will be deported if he pleads guilty, notions of "cure" may apply.