I’ve been doing some research on the Writ of Error Coram Nobis in Maryland and in the midst of it I came across this little gem of a decision, published March 29, 2010, just days before Padilla v. Kentucky was handed down by the Supremes. It is a 53 page decision with big words that even I don’t understand. And, as you know, I know almost everything. It calls the defendant all sorts of names (I think the Judge is calling Mr. Denisyuk names but I don’t really know since I can’t understand what the words mean, but in context they just sound bad). It has an exhaustive explanation of how the circuits rule on direct versus collateral consequenes in ineffective assistance claims and it concludes this:
In the path of this unrelenting judgement of constitutional caselaw, the result was inevitable. The sixth amendment does not impose on a lawyer a duty to inform a client contemplating a guilty plea about collateral consequences generally or the risk of deportation specifically. Our conclusion ineluctably follows: One cannot be guilty of breaching a constitutional duty if such a constitutional duty does not exist.
