In Bautista, the Court found that “there can be no prejudice as a result of counsel's alleged misadvise since (defendant) would nevertheless be facing deportation” whether he plead guilty, or was convicted after trial.
Summary of this case from People v. SamuelsOctober 12, 2011.
Crimes-Right to Counsel — Effective Representation — Failure to Advise Defendant of Potential Immigration Consequences.
In Bautista, the Court found that “there can be no prejudice as a result of counsel's alleged misadvise since (defendant) would nevertheless be facing deportation” whether he plead guilty, or was convicted after trial.
Summary of this case from People v. SamuelsIn People v. Bautista, 33 Misc.3d 1209(A), 2011 WL 4907774 (S Ct, Bx Cty, 2011), p. 4, the Court held that under the Baldi standard, “defendant is not required to fully satisfy the prejudice test' “ since such a finding would be “effectively redundant.
Summary of this case from People v. SamuelsFull title:People v. Bautista (Robert)
Court:Supreme Court of the State of New York. Bronx County
Date published: Oct 12, 2011
See, also, People v. Valestil, 27 Misc.3d 1234(A), 911 N.Y.S.2d 695 (Crim Ct, Kings Cty, 2010)In People v.…
People v. Floyd F.899 N.Y.S.2d 438 [NY App. Div.3d Dept 2010]; People v. Noriega, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 50514[U] [Sup Ct, N.Y.…