The Hidden Costs of a Criminal Conviction

The role of a criminal defense counsel has been changed dramatically by the decisions in State v. Nuñez-Valdéz , 200 N.J. 129 (2009), and Padilla v. Kentucky , 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010).?? Both cases held that attorneys are obligated to provide accurate advice to criminal defendants regarding the risk of adverse deportation consequences.??The Nuñez-Valdéz and Padilla rulings are already generating far-reaching repercussions for the criminal defense bar, because prior to the decisions, counsel were not obligated to advise criminal defendants about such consequences.

Further, the rulings have clouded the waters regarding whether and what advice attorneys must render to clients regarding the risk of any potentially serious consequence of a guilty plea. The defense bar is justifiably confused, as the number of federal and state consequences that stem from criminal convictions in New Jersey alone number in the thousands.??Trying to catalog and understand which, if any, consequences can trigger the types of disclosure required by Nuñez-Valdéz and Padilla will be difficult for defense counsel. Regardless, the failure to understand and present these consequences to a client may raise ineffective assistance of counsel, legal malpractice and due-process issues with respect to any guilty plea.