Padilla v. Commonwealth
381 S.W.3d 322
Ky. Ct. App.2012Background
- Padilla appeals two circuit court orders denying RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02 relief after remand for an evidentiary hearing following Padilla v. Kentucky (2010).
- Supreme Court remanded to determine whether trial counsel’s immigration misadvice prejudiced Padilla under Strickland.
- Padilla is a Honduran lawful permanent resident with over 40 years in the United States; deportation consequences are central to this case.
- In 2002 Padilla pleaded guilty to marijuana offenses; deportation was mandated by statute for his conviction.
- Circuit court found misadvice occurred but held no prejudice under Strickland; Padilla challenged on remand.
- Upon remand, court concluded Padilla would have insisted on going to trial if properly informed, vacating the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla shows prejudice under Strickland to warrant relief | Padilla—prejudice shown; correct immigration advice would have led to trial | Commonwealth—no rational to go to trial given strong evidence and plea benefit | Yes; prejudice shown; conviction vacated for remand proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client of deportation risk; prejudice inquiry remains)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (reasonable probability test for plea-stage prejudice)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (plea process duties of defense counsel)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (Ramifications of defective plea-taking and prejudice standard)
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (2011) (prejudice can be shown even without likely acquittal; rational choice standard)
- Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U.S. 388 (1947) (stakes of deportation in noncitizen defendants)
- I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (deportation consequences tied to criminal conviction)