People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168

Noncitizen defendants pled guilty to felonies in New York and faced potential deportation as a consequence of their pleas.
The Court overruled Ford’s view that warning about deportation never affects plea validity, holding due process requires notice of deportation risk.
Diaz, Peque, and Thomas involved appeals challenging whether the trial court’s failure to warn about deportation rendered pleas involuntary.
Diaz: the trial court did not address deportation; the decision remanded for prejudice development.
Peque: preservation issues governed the direct appeal; Diaz allowed remand to develop prejudice; Thomas preserved its claim on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the deportation risk must be warned about at plea allocution.	People argue deportation is collateral, not altering voluntariness.	Defendants contend due process requires warning due to deportation's severity.	Deportation must be warned; due process requires notice.
Preservation vs. non-preservation for claims about deportation warnings.	People rely on Ford-preservation rules.	Diaz falls under Lopez/Louree exceptions; Peque required preservation.	Diaz remitted for prejudice development; Peque/Thomas addressed on direct appeal.
Remedy for due process violation when deportation warning was missing.	Remedial approach should be automatic vacatur.	Remedy should be prejudice-based; remittal allowed.	Remand to consider prejudice; automatic vacatur not required in all cases.
Classification of deportation as direct vs collateral consequence after Padilla.	Deportation may be treated as direct consequence.	Continues to be viewed as collateral but highly consequential.	Deportation treated as uniquely significant; not purely direct or collateral; requires notice.

Ford v. People, 86 N.Y.2d 397 (N.Y. 1995) (deportation deemed collateral; no pre-plea warning required)
Catu v. United States, 4 N.Y.3d 242 (N.Y. 2004) (failure to warn direct consequence requires reversal; postrelease supervision example)
Gravino v. State, 14 N.Y.3d 546 (N.Y. 2010) (direct vs collateral; some consequences require prejudice show)
Harnett v. State, 16 N.Y.3d 200 (N.Y. 2011) (SORA/SOMTA-like consequences; prejudice standard for remedy)
Lopez v. People, 71 N.Y.2d 662 (N.Y. 1988) (preservation exception for allocution defects when record shows clear deficiency)
Louree v. People, 8 N.Y.3d 541 (N.Y. 2007) (exception to preservation for certain plea-allocution errors)
Murray v. People, 15 N.Y.3d 725 (N.Y. 2010) (when preservation required for voluntariness challenges; narrow exceptions)
Gravino v. State, 14 N.Y.3d 546 (N.Y. 2010) (prejudice standard for significant collateral consequences)