New England Law | Boston

Return to the New England Law | Boston home page.
Center for Law and Social Responsibility
New England Law Opportunities
Center for Law and Social Responsibility Environmental Advocacy Project Criminal Justice Project Education Law Project Immigration Law Project Public Service Project Women's and Children's Advocacy Project Student International Experiences

Welcome to the CLSR Weblog.

Please browse around, catch up on our latest public interest law projects, peruse our links (including the one to our home site, New England Law | Boston), and add your comments. Before you start, we encourage you to become familiar with our Terms of Use.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

NEL|B Alumnae Win Appeal at SJC: Padilla v. Kentucky Applies Retroactively in Massachusetts

Advocates for the immigrant communities of Massachusetts can celebrate a recent victory in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In Commonwealth v. Sylvain, the SJC decided that under Art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as well as under Massachusetts Criminal Procedure, "defendants whose State law convictions were final after April 1, 1997, may attack their convictions collaterally" on the grounds announced by the Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010).

Under Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel included the right of non-citizens to be advised of the deportation consequences of a conviction. However, under a recent Supreme Court decision, Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013), the Court held  that Padilla did not apply retroactively. Under federal criminal procedure, individuals cannot collaterally attack a conviction on Padilla grounds if their conviction was final before the ruling in Padilla.

Defendant's counsel and amici successfully argued before the SJC that the Supreme Court's decision in Chaidez should not apply in Massachusetts, where the law of when rules of criminal procedure apply retroactively are different than under federal law. Under Supreme Court precedent, the finality of convictions under state law is a matter of state concern. States have the authority to provide broader procedural protections than those announced by the Supreme Court as long as state rules do not infringe on the guarantees of the Constitution.

The New England Law | Boston community is incredibly proud of its' alumnae and faculty's hard work on this case. Attorney Laura Mannion Banwarth, '09, represented defendant Kempess Sylvain on appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. Jennifer Sunderland, '08, Staff Attorney, Committee for Public Counsel Services, represented Sylvain during earlier stages of the case. Additionally, NEL|B Professors David Siegel and Lawrence Friedman filed an amicus brief on behalf of Sylvain.

Link to the SJC's Opinion: Com. v. Sylvain
Link to Professor Siegel's and Professor Friedman's Amicus Brief