Alfredo Juarez v. Colorado

In Padilla v. Kentucky, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel requires counsel to provide correct legal advice to noncitizen-defendants about the immigration consequences of a prospective guilty plea. 559 U.S. 356, 368–69 (2010). If federal law is “succinct, clear, and explicit” about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, then defense counsel’s duty to explain those consequences is equally clear. Id. at 368. In contrast, defense counsel need only caution that a guilty plea may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences when federal law is unclear. Id. In Padilla, the Court determined that federal law clearly required the petitioner’s deportation as a result of his guilty plea. Id. at 368–69. Defense counsel was therefore required to explain to the petitioner that the guilty plea would trigger his mandatory deportation as a matter of law. Id. at 360, 369. The question presented in this case is: When there is no dispute that a guilty plea will trigger mandatory deportation pursuant to federal law, must defense counsel advise a noncitizen-defendant that the plea will result in deportation as a matter of law, or is it sufficient for defense counsel to caution that the plea could make the noncitizen-defendant “deportable” or that it will “probably” result in deportation?