The reason that Mr. Adams would have success on an ineffectiveness claim due to how easily the average criminal defense attorney could have determined if the crime was deportable is because of the ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky. Padillaâ€™s counsel gave the wrong advice about deportation which caused Padillaâ€™s plea to automatically deport him. It was determined in the this case that Padillaâ€™s attorney could have very easily confirmed that Padillaâ€™s plea would automatically make him eligible for deportation by merely scanning the immigration statute on controlled substances. Likewise, in this particular case with Mr. Adams, his attorney could have simply read the same immigration statute and told Mr. Adams that his plea would automatically trigger deportation. The court in Padilla did acknowledge that immigration law is a very complex law and attorneys that are not well versed in it would perhaps not understand. However, they determined that when a law is succinct and straightforward, the responsibility and obligation to give correct advice is clear and when the law is not clear or succinct the attorney, at the bare minimum, tell their client they may face deportation consequences. As a result, Mr. Adams has a good chance of success on an ineffectiveness claim against his attorney. The attorney could have easily read the immigration statute and told Mr. Adams that his plea would trigger deportation and Mr. Adams would have chosen another option rather than accepting the plea. Even if the law was not succinct or straightforward, the attorney still had the obligation to let Mr. Adams know that there were deportation consequences.
The fact that in question one,
We will send an essay sample to you in 24 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper