Published on:

Defendant Contests Immigration Issues in Relation to Sex Crimes


The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Floyd F. The Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County is hearing this case. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant has motioned to have his plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the third degree vacated. The plea was taken on the 10th of November, 1994 and he was convicted for the crime (sex crimes) on the 12th of January, 1995.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant is requesting that the judgment against him be vacated based upon ineffective counsel and because the plea was entered without him fully understanding what it met. The defendant argues that when he entered the plea of guilty he was not informed by his attorney of the potential immigration consequences. He states that if he had known about these consequences he would have chosen to not enter the plea and would have gone to trial instead.

The defendant states that he was born in 1973 in the country of Jamaica and became a permanent citizen of the United States in 1991. He states he is married to a citizen of the United States and has three children. The defendant states that in 1997 he applied for citizenship, but was denied. It is also affirmed that in the year 2011 he consulted with an immigration attorney about renewing his application to become a United States citizen and was informed that his conviction of sexual abuse from 1994 made him inadmissible and subject to be deported.

The counsel for the defendant affirms that the defendant was arrested in August of 1994 and arraigned for charges of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child. The counsel further affirms that he entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to one year of probation. He completed all of the terms for his probation. The defendant’s counsel also affirms the fact that the prior counsel of the defendant was informed of his immigration status and the prior counsel did not tell the defendant of the consequences of his guilty plea.

People’s Argument

The People argue that the defendant not being informed of the potential immigration consequences of his plea does not show ineffectiveness of counsel. They state that the defendant has failed to show that prejudice resulted from the alleged failure of his previous counselor. Furthermore, a Bronx Criminal Lawyer said the People state that by entering a guilty plea he was sentenced to a year of probation as opposed to time in prison that he would have likely received if the case had went to trial.

Court Decision

The court has reviewed the arguments from both sides of this case. The defendant has not shown that the alleged failure of his previous attorney to inform him of the possible immigration consequences of his guilty plea were less than the professional norm at the time. For these reasons, the court finds that the defendant has not provided compelling legal arguments in the matter to establish that he was denied effective counsel. The motion to have his guilty plea and subsequent conviction vacated is denied.

Whenever you find yourself in need of legal advice, contact the law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our team of lawyers will be happy to sit down with you and discuss your legal matter. We have offices located throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan for your convenience. First time visitors of our office receive a free consultation regarding their case.

Contact Information