You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY...
, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA; AND DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE DECIDED AGAINST PLEADING GUILTY HAD HE BEEN GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RISK OF DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his guilty plea on the ground his attorney provided erroneous information about the deportation consequences of the plea. In addition to showing defense counsel’s advice was wrong, defendant raised a question of fact whether it was reasonably probable he would not have pled guilty if he had been correctly advised about the risk of deportation:

… [T]rial counsel erroneously advised defendant that he “could . . . be deported” if he were to be “incarcerated for any extensive amount of time,” but, if he were sentenced to “probation,” defendant would not be deported. “These advisements were erroneous, and … defense counsel readily could have ascertained — simply from a reading of the relevant statutes — that defendant’s plea to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree rendered deportation presumptively mandatory and rendered defendant ineligible for cancellation of an order of removal” … . …

… [D]efendant averred in his CPL 440.10 motion that, at the time of his plea, he had resided in the United States for over 20 years and that he “financially supported the mother of his child, as well as her two older children from a prior relationship.” Given his family circumstances and their dependency upon him, defendant averred that, had he received correct advice about pleading guilty to an aggravated felony for purposes of immigration, he “would have rejected the plea offer, proceeded to trial, or sought other alternative plea options.” These allegations “raise a question of fact as to whether it was reasonably probable that he would not have entered a plea of guilty if he had been correctly advised of the deportation consequences of the plea” … . People v Pinales-Harris, 2024 NY Slip Op 02844, Third Dept 5-23-24

Practice Point: If, in the papers supporting a motion to vacate the guilty plea, a defendant shows defense counsel provided erroneous information about the deportation consequences of the guilty plea, and raises a question of fact whether it is reasonably probable he would not have pled guilty had the correct information been provided, he is entitled to a hearing on the motion.

 

You might also like
agreement to maintain a driveway on a right-of-way ran with the land.
CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S ALLEGED BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO THE VERDICT; THE ALLEGED BEHAVIOR WAS NOT SO WRONGFUL OR PERVASIVE AS TO JUSTIFY SETTING ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT’S CONCLUSIONS IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MATTER REMITTED FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).
Matter Remitted; County Court Did Not Follow Procedure Mandated by Drug Law Reform Act
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL BASED UPON COUNSEL’S REMARK THAT DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS UNWARRANTED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL AND HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; MATTER REMITTED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF HER DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, PROPERLY DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.27 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DIRECTIVES; THE DISSENT ARGUED DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 202.27 WAS IMPROPER AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

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

DEATH RECORDS KEPT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE TO... PHYSICAL INCAPACITY CAN BE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A...