deported without knowing that she would be deported as a result of her plea today i will be asking this court order that her plea be set aside because it was not an annoying involuntary sle advice as to the severe penalty of deportation this court may take two approaches to granting relief in this case both approaches  in lessening the likelihood that she would be there for that and indicating that it was optional when in fact it was mandatory and in under the second approach on the judge's miss performance and this case it's clear under the deal which is kentucky that counsel was ineffective in failing to inform the defendant that she would be automatically deported for the offenses she was pleading to reject the plea would have been rational on her part in this case it would have have been rational arm and first of all because  is much more than one defendant was facing in this case another on another observation made by the court of appeals in kentucky which applies in this case is that if the defendant would have known about the mandatory deportation consequences she may have tried to bargain for a lower down to a lower offense that would not have exposed her to you mandatory reporting now on we know that that happens in this state in fact it happened in this case somewhat because they did it on the ple was inevitable there is no reason why she should not she would not have filed a motion to suppress in this case so it's setting aside the the strength of the evidence  the prejudice and that case but it's implicit that they were relying on the principle that pounce on was totally absent during a critical phase of absent essentially during a critical phase of the proceedings in not informing his client of this very important consequence of pleading guilty well this is  at a point now where if you are convicted of an offense that involves more than three grams of cannabis it is out and that's what happened in this case arm so i think under this first approach the courts are would be on all fours with what happened in the body a case in the supreme court and in the courts of kentucky where the on the supreme court found that the is finding that the judges miss advice as to the consequences of pleading guilty rendered three not knowing and voluntary and that is an independent grounds for setting aside sentence the plea is not politics and can be set aside and that grounds along in this case the judge did not inform the the friend incorrectly about the severe penalty and when i say severe penalty i am i'm sorry the particularly severe penalty and i say that i am quoting the deal because it results in what happened in this case a complete banishment that effects families  occurred this was not a fair proceeding on for the defendant and on a never basis that cumulative unfairness  right now there's another aspect of this case and along those lines where he he was essentially sitting in appeal of his own ruling and the post conviction fission which  ineffective on the court rather than correcting counsel's errors actually made matters worse by suggesting that the protection were not was not automatic and perhaps not likely to happen it's made clear in the city a case that anything now over thirty games is either manic even for taishan but is that that i thought for federal charges you know you're on the support state and federal charges and in fact i believe the deal dia that there is a duty to inform the kind of the defendant has a right to know that they will be automatically deported because of the severity of the penalty on the automatic  up at that point it is up to the defendant to decide but it's not a knowing decision in the defendant is not aware of that cost the friend that needs to know that in order to enter into knowing and voluntary now the friend a may choose to roll the dice it may not be the best decision that's not the question the question is whether there it would be reasonable under the circumstances for the defendant to roll the dice and i guess i hear the first is of course whether or not counsel met his performance was deficient and the people smith it was not sufficient performance what counsel said the defendant was caught i cannot guarantee what the government is going to do to you if you plead guilty he said that before the plague as just a schmidt pointed out of the statute those not say anything about automatic deportation or shall be deported or any language so similar to that it says will deportable and will now put the other basically says it's it's it's you know that language specifically commands for removal i don't know where that i don't know where they get that from because the word deportable i don't believe that really means any definition of deport findings of is that there if there is a risk of deportation and they need to be no informed of that and for the also says of with the port of deportation consequences truly clear the advice must be as well but because the word assuming are you want to know if this is mandatory deportation you're going to have a us significant jail sentence and then you get released and you're going to be deported as opposed to if you just take the plea deal then you're just dealing with deportation what's worse jail plus deportation it's not rational whether knots the best decision urt whatever one is clearly worse than the other and going even further than that the fun the defendant's host miranda that she'd done this before she looked in the box it was something green it's probably something illegal is the conclusion she said she was paid to take these boxes but she did it in a controlled by she put it in the garage put a blanket over it host aren't good enough you have to you have to present some sort of claim of innocence or possible defense there's none here and i believe that the find it and not in any way show prejudice because it would have been completely irrational to accept that please similar what the what the judge said one of the sports was obviously they can always pick you up and deporting and hold the counsel said i cannot hear and see what the government governs from you i kind of see those as pretty similar i think the judge when  to i think focus more on the prejudice from and the the actual performance of counsel here i think as i explained for garza what the trial judge said or that the council said defendant's claim that she would have rejected the plea needs to be statement was made after regardless i think the precious prong really really carries the day in this particular case  the limited remnants of equitable discretion rested in the attorney general  court later on in this is that page fourteen eighty three of the decision the court notes that when the deportation consequences truly clear as it was under the the task which is whether it was reasonable to reject the plea the the the importance was not being the point that was the most important back it was not getting the fore they they were willing to roll the dice perhaps serving the prison term they were willing to roll the dice in a trial in order to avoid deportation the automatic deportation that was the predominant perhaps equal punishment without the consequences of deportation and that reminds me that the sentence in this case was just three months patients there must be some alternate offense that would not have exposed the defendant to thirty months probation that whatever exposure thirty months probation without exposing her to automatic deportation so it would have been possible for her to  that whole discussion in that case about prejudice is for sure and the the reliance on hollow in that case is also misplaced because in the hall the prejudice