Filed: Oct. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2019
Summary: Defendant did not fully substantiate his claim that his counsel provided constitutionally deficient advice regarding the immigration consequences of defendant's guilty plea ( see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 367-369 [2010]; People v McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109 , 113-114 [2003]; People v Doumbia, 153 A.D.3d 1139 , 1140 [1st Dept 2017]), and, as such, a hearing on that issue is required ( see CPL 440.30[3][c]). As to the prejudice prong of his claim, which requires proof that he would no
Summary: Defendant did not fully substantiate his claim that his counsel provided constitutionally deficient advice regarding the immigration consequences of defendant's guilty plea ( see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 367-369 [2010]; People v McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109 , 113-114 [2003]; People v Doumbia, 153 A.D.3d 1139 , 1140 [1st Dept 2017]), and, as such, a hearing on that issue is required ( see CPL 440.30[3][c]). As to the prejudice prong of his claim, which requires proof that he would not..
More
Defendant did not fully substantiate his claim that his counsel provided constitutionally deficient advice regarding the immigration consequences of defendant's guilty plea (see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 367-369 [2010]; People v McDonald, 1 N.Y.3d 109, 113-114 [2003]; People v Doumbia, 153 A.D.3d 1139, 1140 [1st Dept 2017]), and, as such, a hearing on that issue is required (see CPL 440.30[3][c]). As to the prejudice prong of his claim, which requires proof that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the incorrect advice, a hearing on that issue is also necessary (see People v Gaston, 163 A.D.3d 442, 444-445 [1st Dept 2018]). We have considered and rejected both parties' remaining arguments.
