You are here: / / Supreme Court Case Relied Upon to Vacate Convictions by Guilty Plea Where...
, ,

Supreme Court Case Relied Upon to Vacate Convictions by Guilty Plea Where Defendant Not Informed of Possibility of Deportation Can Not Be Applied Retroactively

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversed the sentencing court’s vacation of defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea).  The sentencing court had reversed the conviction on the ground defendant had not been informed of the risk of deportation based on the plea.  The sentencing court’s ruling was based upon the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010), which the sentencing court determined should be applied retroactively.  The First Department explained that Padilla should not be applied retroactively, overruling First Department and 3rd Department precedent:

Padilla has been accorded retroactive application by this Court …and the 3rd Department…. However, since Padilla “marks a break from both Federal and State law precedents . . . and fundamentally alters the Federal constitutional landscape, the principles of retroactivity developed by the Supreme Court in construing Federal constitutional law govern the disposition of this case” (People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 275 [1995]).

The holding that Padilla announced new law, by which this Court is bound, dictates the conclusion that it has no retroactive application. As Eastman explains:  “Pursuant to Teague, new rules of constitutional criminal procedure are applied retrospectively in one of two situations: (1) where the new rule places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law making authority to proscribe’ or (2) where the new rule alters a bedrock procedural element of criminal procedure which implicates the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the trial” (Eastman, 85 NY2d at 275, quoting Teague, 489 US at 311-312).

The rule announced in Padilla does neither, merely prescribing a duty imposed on counsel, and does not warrant retroactive application. Thus, defendant may not avail himself of the ruling… People v Verdejo, 2013 NY Slip Op 04913, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

You might also like
Defense Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Amounted to Ineffective Assistance
FALL FROM A FOLDED, UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER AFTER PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED.
EVEN THOUGH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST RIVER PARK WILL BENEFIT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY (FLOOD PROTECTION) AS WELL AS THE PARK, THE RECONSTRUCTION SERVES A PARK PURPOSE AND THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS THERFORE NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
Only Attorney Can Represent Voluntary Association—Appeals Dismissed
DEFENDANT’S STEPMOTHER COULD NOT CONSENT TO THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK, WHICH WAS IN THE STEPMOTHER’S APARTMENT, BECAUSE THE POLICE KNEW THE BACKPACK BELONGED TO DEFENDANT; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM A LOWER COURT RULING ON A GROUND NOT RULED ON BY THE LOWER COURT (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY QUALIFYING HER FOR MEDICAID-REIMBURSED HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, CONTRARY FINDING BY THE NYS OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ANNULLED (FIRST 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

County Court’s Suppression of Statements and Fruits of Search Reversed Bed and Breakfast Not Entitled to Homeowner’s Exemption