People v. Carranza-Lamas

Defense counsel was not obligated to inform Defendant of the specific consequences that pleading guilty to a drug crime and receiving Second 410 first-offender probation would have on discretionary immigration relief. Thus, counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient under U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v Kentucky. In contrast to the defendant in Padilla case, Defendant here was aware of possibility of deportation based on his illegal presence in U.S., and the law was not succinct and straightforward, so defense counsel met his obligations by advising Defendant that guilty plea would have some sort of immigration consequences and that he should speak to an immigration attorney.(BURKE, concurring; HUTCHINSON, specially concurring.)