Collateral consequences of criminal conviction

Last updated

Collateral consequences of criminal conviction are the additional civil state penalties, mandated by statute, that attach to a criminal conviction. They are not part of the direct consequences of criminal conviction, such as prison, fines, or probation. They are the further civil actions by the state that are triggered as a consequence of the conviction.

Contents

In some jurisdictions, a judge, finding a defendant guilty of a crime, can order that no conviction be recorded, thereby relieving the person of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction.

Introduction

If a defendant is found guilty of a crime or pleads guilty, the judge or other sentencing authority imposes a sentence. A sentence can take a number of forms, such as loss of privileges (e.g. driving), house arrest, community service, probation, fines and imprisonment. Collectively, these sentences are referred to as direct consequences – those intended by the judge, and frequently mandated at least in part by an applicable law or statute.

However, beyond the terms of the sentence, a defendant can experience additional state actions that are considered by the state to be collateral consequences such as: disenfranchisement (in some countries this may be separately meted out), disentitlement of education loans (for drug charges in the United States), loss of a professional license, or eviction from public housing. These consequences are not imposed directly by the judge, and are beyond the terms of a sentence itself for the actual crime. Instead, they are civil state actions and are referred to as collateral consequences. In most jurisdictions, being charged with a crime can trigger state civil action in the form of an investigation to determine if the charges trigger the civil statutes that attach to the criminal charges. An example would be criminal charges that can trigger deportation, or the revocation of a professional license, such as a medical, nursing, or pharmacist license. Being subject to collateral consequences has been called a form of civil death. [1]

A person accused or convicted of a crime may suffer social consequences of a conviction, such as loss of a job and social stigma. These social consequences, whether or not they lead to convictions, can arise in countries where arrests and legal proceedings are matters of public record, thus disseminating the information about the event to the public to the detriment of the accused.

Collateral consequences in Australia

In general, the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction are similar to those in other countries. A non-citizen who fails the character requirements [2] of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection may:

Circumstances under which a non-citizen will fail the character test include one or more terms of imprisonment, totalling 12 or more months, whether the imprisonment took place in Australia or overseas.

In most jurisdictions, persons who are serving prison terms may be disqualified to vote.

In some jurisdictions, a judge, finding a person guilty of an offence, can order that no conviction be recorded, thereby relieving the person of the collateral and social consequences of a conviction. [3]

Collateral consequences in Canada

Collateral consequences were defined by Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Pham in 2013. [4] Justice Wagner defined collateral consequences broadly, stating that they are "any consequences for the impact of the sentence on the particular offender." [5] He ruled that judges can take collateral consequences into account during the sentencing procedure, so long as the sentence they impose is proportionate and they do not impose "inappropriate or artificial sentences" that circumvent "Parliament's will". [6] Justice Wagner also stated that, at least in the case of collateral consequences involving immigration, appellate courts can intervene to change a sentence if the trial judge was not aware that such a consequence would arise as a result of his or her sentence. [7]

The issue arose in Pham because under Canadian federal law, a resident of Canada who is not a citizen can be removed from Canada if the person is convicted of certain types of criminal offences. The removal process is not part of the sentence for the criminal offence, and therefore is a collateral consequence. Once a non-resident person is required to leave Canada because of a criminal conviction, they are not entitled to come back to Canada [8] unless they meet the rehabilitation requirements. [9] A non-resident who is convicted of an offence carrying a life sentence is normally barred from Canada for life, if released from incarceration. [10]

R. v. Pham involved an offender whose sentence would have made him ineligible to appeal his deportation if it were not reduced in length by one day. [11] Neither the sentencing judge nor the offender's lawyers were aware of the potential immigration consequences at the time of sentencing. [12] At the Supreme Court, Justice Wagner concluded that, had the sentencing judge been aware of the collateral consequences, he or she would have imposed a sentence that avoided them. [13] He therefore reduced the length of the offender's sentence by one day. [14]

Following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Pham, lower courts extended its applicability to other collateral consequences. For example, courts have held that stigma or the loss of employment following a conviction to be collateral consequences that can be taken into account during sentencing. [15] [16] The British Columbia Court of Appeal also ruled that a "lifetime ban...from income and disability assistance as a result of conviction..." is a collateral consequence and that a more lenient sentence may be imposed to avoid such a consequence. [17]

Collateral consequences in New Zealand

Collateral consequences are generally, more or less, similar to those in the countries mentioned earlier. Any non-citizen to whom the following applies will generally not be allowed to reside in or visit New Zealand:

  1. deportation from any country
  2. a prison sentence, or series of such sentences, adding up to 5 or more years
  3. in the past 10 years, a sentence of imprisonment of 12 or more months (other than a sentence covered in (2) above). [18] [19]

Collateral consequences in the United Kingdom

Such consequences can include:

Some limitations are in place in England and Wales due to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, though this includes a number of exceptions.

Collateral consequences in the United States

Outline of collateral consequences

In the United States, collateral consequences can include loss or restriction of a professional license, ineligibility for public funds including welfare benefits and student loans, loss of voting rights, ineligibility for jury duty, and deportation for immigrants, including those who, while not American citizens, hold permanent resident status. [23]

In general, all states impose such consequences except in situations where criminal charges are dropped or dismissed. [24] In all jurisdictions throughout the U.S., judges are not obligated to warn of these collateral consequences upon a finding of guilt by trial, or prior to an admission of guilt by plea agreement, except as regards deportation. Deportation has been made an exception by the Supreme Court in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky . [25]

There are currently few legal remedies available for these collateral consequences. In recent years, some governmental organizations have, however, discouraged actions that would cause unfairly harsh collateral consequences; for example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) urges human resources managers not to automatically exclude all ex-convicts from employment consideration, particularly if they are members of minorities with disproportionate incarceration rates. [26]

Efforts to include collateral consequences in sentencing in the United States

If a defendant is punished beyond the sentence prescribed by law (that is, if collateral consequences do occur), the punishment is then more severe than that intended or warranted. In the worst case, this might violate protections under the United States Constitution, including the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments".

The Supreme Court of the United States addressed collateral consequences of criminal convictions as early as 1984. In Strickland v. Washington , the Court explored ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to collateral consequences of criminal convictions. [27] In evaluating competence, the Court explained, judges should look at all relevant circumstances and evidence of appropriate measures of professional behavior, such as the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice ("ABA Standards"). The ABA Standards require defense lawyers to consider collateral consequences of conviction. Judges, accordingly, should monitor the performance of counsel. States chose to apply this rule in varying ways.

Strickland encouraged but did not mandate consideration of collateral consequences. Some claim that structural incentives exist for lawyers to not elicit information relevant to collateral consequences because doing so may prolong a case; others note that no attorney or judge could predict any and all collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. Since Strickland did not require an analysis of collateral consequences, they generally are not regarded as cause to overturn criminal convictions. However, some argue that the Constitution should require consideration of collateral consequences. [28]

Most states do not accord equal legal effect to the collateral consequences of criminal convictions. For example, in New York the consideration of certain collateral consequences is merely discretionary, while the elucidation of direct consequences is required. For instance, in People v. Peque, [29] New York's highest court overruled the portion of its prior ruling in People v. Ford [30] that "a court's failure to advise a defendant of potential deportation never affects the validity of the defendant's plea," but still held that a trial court had different duties with regard to direct versus collateral consequences of guilty pleas.

Likewise, the Kentucky Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Fuartado, 170 S.W.3d 384 (Ky. 2005) held that the failure of defense counsel to advise a defendant of potential deportation did not give rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. [31]

Rulings regarding deportation were superseded by Padilla v. Kentucky in 2010. "... counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation." The United States Supreme Court held that the collateral consequence of deportation was a consequence of such great importance that failure by counsel to advise the defendant of deportation is ineffective assistance of counsel which is a constitutional protection under the Sixth Amendment. After Padilla, there has been significant litigation in the lower courts about whether attorneys are required to advise their criminal clients about other consequences of convictions.

In 2004, the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia assembled a document outlining some collateral consequences. [32]

In May 2005, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye of the New York State Court of Appeals organized the Partners in Justice Colloquium to address the issue of collateral consequences. [33] Judge Kaye formed a working group which, in partnership with the Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic at the Columbia University Law School, created a site that, for the first time, collects academic works, court opinions, and professionals' resources (by virtue of a message board and database) in one place. [34] The Columbia University Law School in collaboration with the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning developed and a Collateral Consequences Calculator for looking up and comparing collateral consequences of criminal charges in New York State. [35]

In 2009, the American Bar Association created the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction, a searchable database of the collateral consequences in all U.S. Jurisdictions. The National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction is supported by a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of the Justice. This project was initially supported by Award No.2009-IJ-CX-0102 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and by the ABA Criminal Justice Section.

In Federal law, the federal sentencing guidelines have a model for collateral consequences which is determined by the date of when the offense was committed and by the type of the offense.

See also

Related Research Articles

In legal terms, a plea is simply an answer to a claim made by someone in a criminal case under common law using the adversarial system. Colloquially, a plea has come to mean the assertion by a defendant at arraignment, or otherwise in response to a criminal charge, whether that person pleaded or pled guilty, not guilty, nolo contendere, no case to answer, or Alford plea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summary offence</span> Crime tried without a jury

A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.

In law, a sentence is the punishment for a crime ordered by a trial court after conviction in a criminal procedure, normally at the conclusion of a trial. A sentence may consist of imprisonment, a fine, or other sanctions. Sentences for multiple crimes may be a concurrent sentence, where sentences of imprisonment are all served together at the same time, or a consecutive sentence, in which the period of imprisonment is the sum of all sentences served one after the other. Additional sentences include intermediate, which allows an inmate to be free for about 8 hours a day for work purposes; determinate, which is fixed on a number of days, months, or years; and indeterminate or bifurcated, which mandates the minimum period be served in an institutional setting such as a prison followed by street time period of parole, supervised release or probation until the total sentence is completed.

A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, offence triable either way, or wobbler is one of the special class offences in the common law jurisdictions where the case may be prosecuted either summarily or as indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft. Similarly, a wobblette is a crime that can be charged either as a misdemeanor or an infraction, for example, in California, violating COVID-19 safety precautions.

In United States law, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant asserting that the defendant's legal counsel performed so ineffectively that it deprived the defendant of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ineffectiveness claims may only be brought where the defendant had the right to counsel, ordinarily during the critical stages of a prosecution.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Historically, however, not all countries have always recognized the right to counsel. The right is often included in national constitutions. Of the 194 constitutions currently in force, 153 have language to this effect.

A discharge is a type of sentence imposed by a court whereby no punishment is imposed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

A presentence investigation report (PSIR) is a legal document that presents the findings of an investigation into the "legal and social background" of a person convicted of a crime before sentencing to determine if there are extenuating circumstances which should influence the severity or leniency of a criminal sentence. The PSIR is a "critical" document prepared by a probation officer via a system of point allocation, so that it may serve as a charging document and exhibit for proving criminal conduct. The PSIR system is widely implemented today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which makes significant changes in many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In particular, it changes the law relating to custodial sentences and the early release of prisoners to reduce prison overcrowding, which reached crisis levels in 2008. It also reduces the right of prison officers to take industrial action, and changed the law on the deportation of foreign criminals. It received royal assent on 8 May 2008, but most of its provisions came into force on various later dates. Many sections came into force on 14 July 2008.

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. The case extended the Supreme Court's prior decisions on criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel to immigration consequences.

A deferred adjudication, also known in some jurisdictions as an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACOD), probation before judgment (PBJ), or deferred entry of judgment (DEJ), is a form of plea deal available in various jurisdictions, where a defendant pleads "guilty" or "no contest" to criminal charges in exchange for meeting certain requirements laid out by the court within an allotted period of time also ordered by the court. Upon completion of the requirements, which may include probation, treatment, community service, some form of community supervision, or some other diversion program, the defendant may avoid a formal conviction on their record or have their case dismissed. In some cases, an order of non-disclosure can be obtained, and sometimes a record can be expunged.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in Canada</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in Canada

Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.

Loss of rights due to criminal conviction refers to the practice in some countries of reducing the rights of individuals who have been convicted of a criminal offence. The restrictions are in addition to other penalties such as incarceration or fines. In addition to restrictions imposed directly upon conviction, there can also be collateral civil consequences resulting from a criminal conviction, but which are not imposed directly by the courts as a result of the conviction.

The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Expungement in the United States is a process which varies across jurisdictions. Many states allow for criminal records to be sealed or expunged, although laws vary by state. Some states do not permit expungement, or allow expungement under very limited circumstances. In general, once sealed or expunged, all records of an arrest and of any subsequent court proceedings are removed from the public record, and the individual may legally deny or fail to acknowledge ever having been arrested for or charged with any crime which has been expunged.

Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Padilla v. Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied. Justice Scalia wondered if the same logic could be extended and applied to numerous other cases, and felt it would be impossible for attorneys to make sure any client was informed of all the potential legal consequences post trial.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

References

  1. ↑ Chin, Gabriel Jackson (May 2012). "The New Civil Death: Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Conviction". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 160: 1789–833. JSTOR   41511317. SSRN   2072736.
  2. ↑ Australia: Department of Immigration and Border Protection - "Character and police certificate requirements."
  3. ↑ e.g., SENTENCING ACT 1991 - SECT 8
  4. ↑ R v Pham, 2013 SCC 15, [2013] 1 SCR 739.
  5. ↑ R v Pham, paragraph 11.
  6. ↑ R v Pham, paragraphs 14-15.
  7. ↑ R v Pham, paragraph 24.
  8. ↑ Government of Canada: Immigration - "Determine if you are inadmissible".
  9. ↑ Government of Canada: Immigration - "Overcome criminal convictions".
  10. ↑ Halifax Chronicle-Herald, November 4, 2014: "Man convicted in Halifax murder gets full parole, to be deported to Vietnam."
  11. ↑ R v Pham, paragraphs 3-4.
  12. ↑ R v Pham, paragraphs 4-5.
  13. ↑ R v Pham, paragraph 25.
  14. ↑ R v Pham, paragraph 26.
  15. ↑ R v Lennox, 2013 BCPC 273 (21 June 2013). Archived 23 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine
  16. ↑ R v Bell, 2013 MBQB 80 (28 March 2013).
  17. ↑ R v Dennis, 2013 BCCA 153 (27 March 2013), paragraphs 9 and 36.
  18. ↑ New Zealand Immigration: Police Certificates.
  19. ↑ Immigration New Zealand: Immigration Act, 2009.
  20. ↑ Common Law Police Disclosure.
  21. ↑ The Highway Code, Annex 5. Penalties.
  22. ↑ Firearms Act 1968, c 27, s 21
  23. ↑ Chin, Gabriel Jackson (2002). "Race, the War on Drugs, and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction". Journal of Gender, Race & Justice. 6: 253–78. doi:10.2139/ssrn.390109. SSRN   390109.
  24. ↑ "If Charges Are Dismissed, Do You Have a Criminal Record?", backgroundcheckrepair.org, September 13, 2022.
  25. ↑ Padilla v Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).
  26. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: "Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
  27. ↑ Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984)
  28. ↑ Chin, Gabriel Jackson; Holmes, Richard W. (2002). "Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Consequences of Guilty Pleas". Cornell Law Review. 87 (3). SSRN   268115.
  29. ↑ People v. Peque, 22 N.Y.3d 168, 3 N.E.3d 617, 980 N.Y.S.2d 280 (N.Y. 2013).
  30. ↑ People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 657 N.E.2d 265, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. 1995).
  31. ↑ Commonwealth v. Fuartado, 170 S.W.3d 384 (Ky. 2005).
  32. ↑ Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions in the District of Columbia: A Guide for Criminal Defense Lawyers.
  33. ↑ Partners in Justice: Colloquium on Developing Collaborations Among Courts, Law School Clinical Programs, & the Practicing Bar (2005).
  34. ↑ Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction, New York State
  35. ↑ Collateral Consequences Calculator: New York State.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.