Client released from federal immigration detention on withdrawal of guilty plea in State court.
The firm of Martin E. Regan and Associates successfully argued to withdraw the guilty plea of a legal permanent resident facing deportation after pleading guilty to state criminal charges. The Petitioner had been charged with a state criminal offense in 2009. He was offered a plea deal, but his attorney at that time did not advise that he could face deportation by taking the plea. In 2010, he pled guilty. As a result of pleading guilty, he was detained by federal authorities and ordered for deportation earlier this year.
In state post-conviction proceedings, the trial court considered whether his guilty plea should be withdrawn, under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 173 (2010). In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that criminal defense attorneys must advise their noncitizen clients about immigration consequences in entering a guilty plea.
On July 28, 2011, the trial court granted his Application for Post-Conviction Relief, and ordered the guilty plea withdrawn. As a result, federal authorities released him from detention on August 2, 2011.
“In legal terms, a plea is simply an answer to a claim made by someone in a civil or criminal case under common law using the adversary system. Colloquially, a plea has come to mean the assertion by a criminal defendant at arraignment, or otherwise in response to a criminal charge, whether that person pleaded Guilty, Not Guilty, No Contest or Alford plea.”
About Martin E. Regan, Jr.
Year after year, Martin E. Regan Jr., the firm’s senior partner, has dedicated tireless efforts on behalf of the accused and produce wins for clients that a less determined advocate would have thought hopeless. Martin E. Regan Jr.’s ability to tackle and win tough criminal cases has resulted in verdicts of acquittal in many highly publicized trials.