Another Padilla victory
the The Houston Court of Appeals recently granted relief in another case - The State of Texas vs. Terry Golding. The defendant had plead guilty to driving while intoxicated and unlawfully possessing a firearm. At the time – 1994 – he was a lawful permanent resident. No one told him that the convictions might impact his immigration status, and shortly after Padilla was decided he filed a writ of habeas corpus claiming his plea was involuntary for that reason. The trial court agreed, and recommended that relief be granted.
One of the big issues in the case was whether the defendant was adversely affected. The state argued that he suffered no collateral consequences from the convictions because he had not been deported, nor was he arrested or incarcerated The court rejected that argument, holding it was sufficient to show that he had been denied the opportunity to apply for naturalization, as well as the possibility that he could be deported in the future.
The state also argued that he waited too long - laches - which was also rejected.
This case is significant because it establishes that a defendant does not have to wait until something bad happens to challenge his plea. It also shows how much power and discretion trial courts have. Here the judge entered findings that supported the grant of relief. As long as there is some evidence to support those findings they are almost unchallengeable. Had the judge found relief was not warranted, the result would have no doubt been different.
With that said, the lawyers apparently did a great job of presenting evidence to the judge. They established through trial counsel that Golding was not advised about potential immigration consequences. They also presented evidence from an immigration on the effects of such a plea, as well as presented letters of recommendation that could be filed to support his application for citizenship.
This case also is a blue print for lawyers on what they need to do - which depends on the facts of the case. Here the consequences of a plea were automatic, so the defendant had to be advised of those consequences. In those cases it is not sufficient to simply advise a client that a plea "might" result in deportation or other negative consequences. That places the burden on the lawyer to either know some basic immigration lawyer, or consult with someone who does. Many lawyers are not happy with that added responsibility, but it is something you must accept if you want to be a criminal defense lawyer. After all, if you don't tell your client what might happen, who will?
