Padilla claim in Massachusetts

2026See Padilla, 559 U.S. at 368 ("Padilla's counsel could have easily determined that his plea would make him eligible for deportation simply from reading the text of the statute, which . . . specifically commands removal for [nearly] all controlled substances convictions" [emphasis added]); id. at 369 ("The consequences of Padilla's plea could easily be determined from reading the removal statute, his deportation was presumptively mandatory, and his counsel's advice [that conviction would not result in removal] was incorrect" [emphasis added]); id. at 373 ("The severity of deportation –- 'the eq

2026See Padilla, 559 U.S. at 368 ("Padilla's counsel could have easily determined that his plea would make him eligible for deportation simply from reading the text of the statute, which . . . specifically commands removal for [nearly] all controlled substances convictions" [emphasis added]); id. at 369 ("The consequences of Padilla's plea could easily be determined from reading the removal statute, his deportation was presumptively mandatory, and his counsel's advice [that conviction would not result in removal] was incorrect" [emphasis added]); id. at 373 ("The severity of deportation –- 'the eq

2024Padilla, 559 U.S. at 366, 369, 374 , citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2024Padilla, 559 U.S. at 366, 369, 374 , citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2018In the context of a Padilla claim, the defendant has three avenues for demonstrating prejudice: he can show (1) that he had a viable defense to the charges, (2) a reasonable probability of negotiating a plea bargain that would not have exposed him to immigration consequences, or (3) "the presence of 'special circumstances' that support the conclusion that he placed, or would have placed, particular emphasis on immigration consequences in deciding whether to plead guilty." Henry , 88 Mass. App. Ct. at 455 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Clarke , 460 Mass. 30 , 47-48 (2011).

2018In the context of a Padilla claim, the defendant has three avenues for demonstrating prejudice: he can show (1) that he had a viable defense to the charges, (2) a reasonable probability of negotiating a plea bargain that would not have exposed him to immigration consequences, or (3) "the presence of 'special circumstances' that support the conclusion that he placed, or would have placed, particular emphasis on immigration consequences in deciding whether to plead guilty." Henry , 88 Mass. App. Ct. at 455 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Clarke , 460 Mass. 30 , 47-48 (2011).

2024See Commonwealth v. Roberts, 472 Mass. 355, 355, 363 (2015) (holding that civil commitment as sexually dangerous person [SDP] is not direct consequence of sexual offense conviction).18 In sum, we are not persuaded by the juvenile's 18The defendant in Roberts, 472 Mass. at 355 , argued that a Sixth Amendment analysis should be applied to his counsel's failure to inform him that pleading guilty to forcible rape of a child could result in his being civilly confined as a "sexually dangerous person." The Supreme Judicial Court rejected that argument, declining to apply the Padilla analysis to other

2024See Commonwealth v. Roberts, 472 Mass. 355, 355, 363 (2015) (holding that civil commitment as sexually dangerous person [SDP] is not direct consequence of sexual offense conviction).18 In sum, we are not persuaded by the juvenile's 18The defendant in Roberts, 472 Mass. at 355 , argued that a Sixth Amendment analysis should be applied to his counsel's failure to inform him that pleading guilty to forcible rape of a child could result in his being civilly confined as a "sexually dangerous person." The Supreme Judicial Court rejected that argument, declining to apply the Padilla analysis to other

2019See Mercado , 474 Mass. at 83 ("Commonwealth[ ] understandabl[y] argu[ed] that the holding in Sylvain was retroactive only to convictions accruing after April 1, 1997, a ruling we have now clarified").