## Facts

- Jose Padilla, a lawful permanent resident and Honduran national, was charged in Kentucky with offenses including marijuana trafficking.
- Padilla accepted a plea agreement, pleading guilty to drug charges in exchange for dismissal of another charge.
- Federal immigration law made Padilla’s conviction a basis for mandatory deportation.
- Padilla sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of deportation consequences and affirmatively told him he did not need to worry about immigration due to his long residence.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals ordered an evidentiary hearing, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, ruling deportation is a “collateral consequence” outside the Sixth Amendment’s ineffective-assistance scope.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to advise a noncitizen client about the deportation risk of a guilty plea.
2. Whether the direct-versus-collateral consequences distinction categorically excludes deportation advice from Sixth Amendment scrutiny.
3. Whether Padilla’s allegations stated deficient performance under *Strickland v. Washington* given the clarity of the deportation consequence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Supreme Court and remanded.
- The Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise a noncitizen client whether a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation.
- The Court rejected treating deportation as categorically outside the Sixth Amendment by labeling it “collateral,” given its close connection to the criminal process and modern immigration statutes that often make removal a near-automatic result of certain convictions.
- Applying *Strickland*, the Court held Padilla sufficiently alleged constitutionally deficient performance.
- The Court did not decide prejudice and remanded for state courts to address whether Padilla could satisfy *Strickland*’s prejudice prong.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective assistance claims based on plea advice are governed by *Strickland v. Washington* (deficient performance and prejudice).
- Defense counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty during plea negotiations to provide competent advice about deportation consequences for noncitizen defendants.
- When immigration consequences are unclear, counsel must at least warn that pending charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.
- When immigration consequences are clear under federal law, counsel must give correct advice; affirmative misadvice and constitutionally significant silence can constitute deficient performance.
- A defendant alleging prejudice must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial.

## Conclusion

The Court held that deportation consequences of a guilty plea fall within the Sixth Amendment’s effective-assistance requirement under *Strickland*, and it remanded for determination whether counsel’s deficient advice (if proven) prejudiced Padilla’s decision to plead guilty.


Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010)