Motion to Draw Guilty PleaEssay Preview: Motion to Draw Guilty PleaReport this essayMotion to Withdraw Guilty PleaI witnessed a case where the defendant entered guilty pleas to three misdemeanor charges theft, criminal damage to property and entry into a locked vehicle. The defendant was sentenced back in two thousand fifteen and, following sentencing, the defendant filed a notice of intent to pursue post conviction relief pursuant. The judge in this case name was Virginia Norton and this case took place at the Duval county Clerk of Court in Jacksonville Florida.The defendant is not a citizen of the United States. During the courts guilty plea colloquy with the defendant the court failed to inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction at the time The defendant entered his guilty pleas he did not know that the criminal convictions would subject him to deportation proceedings. The federal government has, in fact, started deportation proceedings against the defendant. That matter is set for final hearing in March, two thousand and sixteen. The court did not warn the defendant of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas and, therefore, the statute mandatorily requires the court to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty pleas. When the defendant entered his guilty pleas the court did not give the defendant the mandatory statutory warning concerning the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. The failure to give the statutory immigration warning makes the courts obligation to grant the defendants motion to withdraw his plea is mandatory- regardless of whether the defendant can establish that the error was not harmless. Even if the defendant is required to show that the error was not harmless he is able to do so. The defendant would testify that at the time he entered his pleas he did not know that the convictions would cause him to be deported. He would not have entered the guilty pleas had he known this and, now, he is subject to deportation.
The defendant did not received the statutory that says If a court fails to advise a defendant as required by subject and a defendant later shows that the plea is likely to result in the defendants deportation, exclusion from admission to this country or denial of naturalization, the court on the defendants motion shall vacate any applicable judgment against the defendant and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea and enter another plea. This subsection does not limit the ability to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest on any other grounds. Here, the transcript of the plea hearing establishes that the court did not warn the defendant of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas. Thus, the plea colloquy was defective. Additionally, the defendant affidavit establishes that at the time he entered his guilty pleas he did not understand that the convictions could result in deportation. Moreover, the defendant is now the subject of deportation proceedings and, therefore, the motion is ripe.
[Footnote 1/13]
Bryant J. (Pulitzer J.). (1972). United States v. Wask, 528 U.S. 875, 887 (1999) (“Wask was a case where the Supreme Court did not find immigration deportation without the mandatory minimum of showing that a defendant would be subject to adverse treatment in his capacity as a result of immigration deportation under any immigration law, or that any such admission would result in the deportation of any of these defendants.”).
[Footnote 1/14]
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals is reversed.
REVERSED.
United States v. Vintner, 510 U.S. 871, 876 (2010).
[Footnote 1/15]
JEFFERSON v. DURAN, 478 U.S. 479 (1986).
[Footnote 1/16]
Johnson, supra, at 6.
[Footnote 1/17]
United States v. TAPPER, 493 U.S. 528, 529 (1990).
[Footnote 1/18]
JHENESCH v. RICE, 518 U.S. 653, 686-887, 803 n. 6 (1995).
[Footnote 1/19]
FITZ v. PUTT, 602 F.Supp.3d 701 (CA2 2010) (holding that the government cannot compel a defendant to sign a written petition of a petitioner to admit as a foreign national. “The court may also hold [federal prosecutors may] order a foreign criminal offense even if the petitioner does not have the requisite evidence of the prosecution for the offense); see also TAPPER, 501 F.Supp. at 702 (noting that a prosecution for an immigration violation cannot involve a “frivolous act of intimidation,” “cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s protections of religious liberty, or an act which is prejudicial to freedom of assembly”); see also JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.
[Footnote 1/20]
JOHNSON v. FREDERICK, 906 F.2d 741 (CA6 1983) (holding that an appellate court could refuse to enforce a foreign national immigration judgment on the ground that a national judge erred in his finding a defendant alien to the United States had committed a crime, including illegal alien crimes, unless the court failed to instruct the defendant how the foreign crime was committed, thereby nullifying his decision).
[Footnote 1/21]
United States v. CARNESTONE, 521 U.S. 503, 505-506 (1997).
[Footnote 1/22]
DOWNS v. COLEMAN, 906 F.2d 739 (CA6 1983) (holding that a court can strike any federal statute limiting immigration without finding there is a “special relationship between the statute’s provisions and the state law”); UNITED STATES v. BURGER, 901 F.2d 816, 825-827 (CA9 1980) (holding that states must not be allowed to refuse to grant permits based on immigration status, absent an evidentiary nexus).
_________
[Footnote 1/23]
United States v. JANITA, 463 U.S. 621, 620 (1983).
[Footnote 1/24]
HENDERSON v. MCDONALD, 685 F.2d 917 (CA9 1968) (holding that a federal judge may sentence certain deportations to citizens of another nation who were at the time convicted of some or all of the offenses described in the petition filed by petitioner, regardless of how many deportations he would make had been instituted absent the plea).
APPENDIX F
United States v. KERRY, 464 F