Chaudhary Law Office successfully argued that, under the 2010 Supreme Court decision Padilla v. Kentucky, the client had not been advised by the Court that his guilty plea may result in deportation and/or other adverse immigration consequences.  Chaudhary also cited two Minnesota Court of Appeals cases on the subject just this year, one decided during preparation of the motion.   Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure also require an advisory regarding adverse immigration consequences along with other waivers of individual rights, when pleading guilty.

In this matter, the client presumed his situation was innocent enough to avoid consulting an attorney before pleading guilty.  However he was surprised with a separate reckless driving charge, an "over 100 mph" rule causing license suspension, and resulting incarceration.  More importantly, he was unaware of his presumption of innocence, right to a public defender, and potential immigration consequences.  

His case shows that temporary workers, visitors, or immigrants accused of any crime should not take chances with their status and at least consult an attorney.  It is better to have attorney representation than chance deportation or denial of future admission or change of status.

Furthermore, courts are increasingly allowing withdrawal of guilty pleas even if people were represented by a lawyer and--even if the plea occurred before the Padilla decision!  Those who have plead guilty to any crime in the past, and fear adverse immigration consequences, are advised to consult an attorney to consider their rights and options.  In this situation, ignorance of the law (i.e. one's rights) may indeed be an excuse!