Wait, now, seriously, I've got it:

"The defendant hereby confirms that his plea of guilty or no contest is not in any way influenced or based upon any particular outcome regarding deportation or immigration exclusion that may or may not result from the disposition of this case. If he changes his mind and claims otherwise later, he is a big fat liar."

From what I can tell about ICE, it would be as reliable to predict deportation if we bought a magic 8 ball for every court and the defendant got to ask his deportation question before he signed the plea papers.

Will I be deported? "Not today" or "It is certain"

"Ask again later."

JB corectly spoke of the shortcomings in the Saldana opinion (noted well above in this thread). On that same theme, does the fact that the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial judge in Tanklevskya without any discussion of the role of the trial judge as factfinder or determiner - of the credibility of her claim that she would probably have risked a contested trial - mean the weight of the evidence of guilt is immaterial? Could not the trial judge reasonably find there were valid reasons to accept the plea bargain that overshadowed exclusion from the country?

Moreover, should not the appeals court have remanded the case to the trial court rather than finding on its own that Tanklevskya was entitled to relief? What deference was given to the trial judge's determination (and better ability to judge credibility)? There was not even a finding that the applicant was found credible to support the decision of the COA.

If nothing else, cases like this serve to bring to the forefront the need for a limitations period with respect to collateral attacks on court proceedings. I kind of doubt Tanklevskya is truly going to face a second prosecution for the marijuana (regardless of how solid the State's proof may once have been).

Does anyone know how to find out if a defendant has a green card and if so for how long?

Does anyone know what the status of the Padilla case on remand is? Have the Kentucky courts made any rulings?

Lexis's Shepards doesn't show anything.

The case was remanded to the circuit court for new proceedings a couple of weeks after the Supreme Court handed down the opinion.

Looks like Mr. Padilla was found guilty again either through a plea or trial (but looks like a trial) in March of last year. From the court of appeals docket sheets it looks like he filed the equivalent of a post-conviction writ. Being unfamiliar with Kentucky law though, it may just be a direct appeal. It's pending the Kentucky Court of Appeals right now. 2011-CA-000553

SCOTUS just decided Chaidez today. Padilla is NOT retroactive.