Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court overturns immigrant's guilty plea to drug charge because he didn't know it would mean getting deported
By adamg on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 10:41am
The Supreme Judicial Court today ordered a trial for a man who pleaded guilty to cocaine possession in 2007 after his attorney incorrectly told him it would not subject him to deportation.
The state's highest court agreed with Kempess Sylvain, now being held in an ICE facility in Plymouth, that this "ineffective counsel" was an egregious enough mistake to overturn his plea and let him take his chances before a jury.
Sylvain, originally charged with cocaine distribution, agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of cocaine possession after his attorney told him he would be able to stay in the country. In his request for a trial, Sylvain, who has permanent resident status, argued he never would have pleaded guilty had he known that was wrong, because not only did he graduate high school in Boston, but his mother, three sisters, girlfriend and son are all US residents. In an affidavit, he wrote that:
[H]e would not have agreed to accept the plea "deal" if he knew it would have resulted in "being deported from my home and my family." He said further, "I would have taken my chances at trial, knowing full well that if I was found guilty at trial I would be sentenced to committed time and then deported afterward; at least I would have had a chance at staying in the country."
Neighborhoods:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete ruling, Commonwealth vs. Kempess Sylvain | 136.49 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
He's probably holding on to a
He's probably holding on to a very slim chance of winning his case and not getting deported anyways, but yeah, that's a pretty important detail his lawyer should have mentioned in the first place.
Depends
WIll the jury at his trial be allowed to consider the lesser charge of cocaine posession. If they're directed to only consider the cocaine posession charge, there's a good chance he may go free.
After all, it only takes one out of twelve to hang a jury.
Ordered a Trial
Note that he isn't walking away a free man on this - just getting the trial that he would have gotten had he not been given bad advice.
At the time it was given it
At the time it was given it was accurate advice. The case law changed in the interim.
Of course, it would have been
Of course, it would have been too easy if the judge explained this to him. It's too bad we make the system so unnecessarily confusing that people need to spend their savings on lawyers to explain it to them.
Silly you expecting judges in
Silly you expecting judges in this state to know and be willing to impartially explain the law to the little people.
/I wish I were joking
We are paying for the lawyer.
We are paying for the lawyer. He is court appointed. The judge did explain the immigration consequences, just as they do in every case. The appeal was not about the judges colloquy.
Ugh. When did immigration
Ugh. When did immigration status become a right and not a privilege?
Doesn't matter; that's not the issue
The issue is that the constitution gives you the right to adequate counsel, and the court ruled this guy didn't get that and, yes, even permanent residents have rights under the constitution.
The ruling doesn't mean he's free to go; in fact, he now faces a more serious charge.
Didn't Emily Post say a guest
Didn't Emily Post say a guest should be on his best behavior.?
Deport Him and his friends
This bird should be long gone.
466 Mass 422
Here's an excerpt from the SJC discussion of the behavior of our little "guest":
Background. The material facts are not in dispute. On the morning of April 15, 2007, a Boston police officer patrolling along Blue Hill Avenue in the Dorchester section of Boston witnessed the defendant engaging in a sexual act with a prostitute. As the officer approached, the defendant removed several small plastic baggies from his coat pocket and placed them in his mouth. Believing that the baggies contained "crack" cocaine and fearing that the defendant might overdose, the officer attempted to intercede. Although the defendant ingested the drugs, a subsequent search of his jacket revealed an additional baggie of "crack" cocaine. The incident took place within 1,000 feet of a child care center.
Following his arrest, the defendant was charged with one
Page 425
count of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (a); and one count of a drug violation in a school zone, G. L. c. 94C, § 32J. The latter charge carried a minimum mandatory sentence of two years' imprisonment. In exchange for the dismissal of the school zone and distribution related charges, the defendant pleaded guilty to simple possession of cocaine, G. L. c. 94C, § 34, and was sentenced to eleven months in the house of correction suspended for two years. The defendant's conviction became final on October 2, 2007. [Note 2]
Yeah, but what I wanna know is.....
what happened with the prozzie? lol