You are here: / / Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defendant...
, ,

Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defendant Alleged He Would Not Have Pled Guilty Absent His Attorney’s Affirmative Misinformation About the Deportation Consequences of the Plea

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Spain, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction based on the allegation defense counsel gave defendant affirmative misinformation about the deportation consequences of his guilty plea:

Defendant’s motion to vacate sufficiently raises a question as to whether trial counsel provided him with affirmative misinformation regarding the deportation consequences of his guilty plea and adequately alleges facts that, if credited, show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s erroneous assurances in this regard, defendant would have insisted on going to trial … . Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a hearing on the issues raised in his CPL 440.10 (1) (h) motion and the order must, therefore, be reversed… . People v Diallo, 104609, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

You might also like
ORDER ENTERED UPON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE, COERCION ARGUMENT MUST BE RAISED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).
“Out-of-Title” Work Did Not Warrant Higher Pay
JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.
Mother’s Violations of Conditions of a Suspended Judgment, Under the Facts, Justified Termination of Parental Rights (Against the Wishes of the Child)
The Decision Whether to Raise the Defense of Justification Is for the Defendant, Not Defense Counsel, to Make—Counsel Was Not Ineffective for Failing to Raise the Defense Over Defendant’s Objection—The Court Did Not Err By Failing to Instruct the Jury, Sua Sponte, on the Justification Defense In Response to a Jury Note Which Indicated the Jury Was Considering It
Hearsay Supporting Child Abuse Report Seriously Controverted—Report Expunged
RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER.
Petitions to Relocate Are Not Subject to a “Change in Circumstances” Analysis But Rather a “Best Interests of the Child Analysis;” the “Lincoln” Hearing Was Improperly Held In the Presence of Parents’ Counsel and the Transcribed Proceedings Were Improperly Left Unsealed and Included in the Record on Appeal; An Article 10 Hearing, Where Counsel for the Parents Are Allowed to Be Present, Should Not Be Confused with an Article 6 Hearing, Where They Are Not

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Motion to Renew Based Upon New Evidence Should Have Been Granted/Request to... Restitution Hearing Required/Insufficient Proof to Substantiate the Amount/Conclusory...