Whether a trial court commits error when it takes a guilty plea from a criminal defendant when the trial court is on specific notice that defense counsel has not advised the non-citizen defendant of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea, and the Court of Appeals must consider the matter on direct appeal when failure to advise is clear from the record

QUESTION PRESENTED In the Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), this Honorable Court held that a criminal defense lawyer is ineffective when the lawyer fails to advise a noncitizen defendant of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Nonetheless, when the District Court took Jorge Ernesto Blanco-Rodriguez’s guilty plea, the Court, during the plea colloquy, was made fully aware by Blanco-Rodriguez that the defense lawyer had failed to advise Blanco-Rodriguez of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and that Blanco Rodriguez wanted his immigration questions answered. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appels held that it would not consider Mr. Blanco-Rodriguez’s claim that his plea was involuntary in an appeal but would only consider the issue in a post-conviction writ. This Court should answer the question of whether a trial court commits error when it takes a guilty plea from a criminal defendant when the trial court is on specific notice that defense counsel has not advised the non-citizen defendant of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea, and the Court of Appeals must consider the matter on direct appeal when failure to advise is clear from the record. i